Arebalo v. Apple, Inc.

Background

The order addressed Apple’s administrative motions to seal portions of its opposition to Joshua Arebalo’s motion to set aside the settlement agreement, Apple’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement, Apple’s reply, supporting declarations, and exhibits. Apple argued that the requested material included terms from the confidential settlement agreement and communications and negotiations about settlement.

Apple also moved to remove incorrectly filed documents from the docket.

Legal standard

Court records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. For records connected more than tangentially to the merits of a case, a party seeking to seal them must show compelling reasons supported by specific facts. For records connected only tangentially to the merits, such as filings related to a motion to enforce a settlement, the lower good-cause standard applies. Good cause requires a particularized showing of specific harm or prejudice from disclosure.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) permits sealing to protect trade secrets and confidential commercial information. Civil Local Rule 79-5 also requires sealing requests to be narrowly tailored and supported by proposed redactions that identify only material entitled to protection.

Analysis

The court held that the production provision and integration clause in the settlement agreement were relevant to the parties’ motions and the court’s ruling. Apple did not show that those provisions revealed sensitive or confidential information, so the court found no good cause to seal them. The court noted that information showing the amount of the production provision’s penalty fee could be sealed.

The court found good cause to seal the remainder of the settlement agreement because the public had minimal interest in terms that were not the focus of the motions or ruling. For settlement communications, the court permitted redaction only of proposed settlement terms and actual negotiations about those terms, except for the production provision and integration clause. Communications already quoted or referenced in Arebalo’s publicly filed briefs could not be sealed on that basis.

The court found Apple’s proposed redactions were not narrowly tailored. Apple sought to seal large portions of its briefs containing general information about settlement agreements, information that was not clearly confidential, and details such as the mediator’s name, the timing of mediation, and dates of communications or events. Some information had also already been disclosed publicly. The court further found that Apple’s requests did not match its proposed redactions and that Apple had again failed to comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Apple’s motions to seal. The order granted sealing for specified settlement terms, negotiation material, quoted text, settlement and offer amounts, penalty-fee amounts, and other specifically identified portions. It denied sealing for other identified portions, including Apple’s opposition brief’s listed page-two material, portions of the motion to enforce settlement, portions of the reply, and most of Exhibit 9 except for its total amount. Several exhibits were granted in part subject to resubmission of revised redacted versions.

For Exhibits 2–9, 10–13, and 15–17 to the declaration supporting Apple’s motion to enforce settlement, Apple had to submit revised redacted versions by March 4, 2022. The court stated that if Apple did not resubmit them by that date, the documents would be unsealed in their entirety.

The court did not remove the incorrectly filed documents from the docket because the docket is part of the public and appellate record. It ordered that those documents remain under seal.