Firstface Co., Ltd. v. Apple, Inc.
- 3:18-cv-02245
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
Firstface v. Apple: the court partly granted and denied sealing requests, requiring disclosure of unsupported redactions; the judge’s name is unclear in the text.
Firstface and Apple must disclose material that did not qualify for sealing, while limited redactions may remain for an Apple employee’s identifying and medical information. The order also affects public access to the parties’ court filings.
What happened
In Firstface Co., Ltd. v. Apple, Inc., the court considered requests to keep parts of court filings confidential. It said court records are generally public and that a party seeking secrecy must provide specific facts showing a compelling reason for it.
The court allowed limited redactions of an Apple employee’s identifying and medical information, but rejected other proposed redactions. It denied sealing for filings involving Apple’s Touch ID functionality, source code, market research, consumer surveys, and usage data because Apple had not provided enough specific support. It also denied sealing for two documents because the parties no longer sought to keep them sealed. The court terminated one sealing request without prejudice and ordered the parties to submit a revised joint motion.
The court ordered revised public and redacted filings and warned that unreasonable sealing requests could lead to sanctions. The supplied text does not clearly identify the judge by name; the order is dated November 2, 2022.
The detailed version
- Firstface Co., Ltd. v. Apple, Inc. · No. 3:18-cv-02245
- Nov. 2, 2022
Background
Firstface and Apple filed motions to seal portions of filings connected with a motion to strike, a discovery letter, and a motion to amend infringement contentions. The court applied the presumption that judicial records are public and stated that the party seeking to seal material must show specific facts establishing compelling reasons that outweigh public access. General claims of competitive or commercial harm, and confidentiality designations under a protective order, were not enough by themselves.
Rulings on Apple employee information
Apple sought redactions of information concerning an Apple employee’s identity and medical information in filings related to a motion to strike. The court found that Apple met its burden for some of the requested redactions. It allowed redaction of information that directly or indirectly identified the employee and the employee’s medical information. The attached chart states that sealing was granted in part for Dkt. Nos. 180-4 and 180-5, and granted for the employee’s name and medical information in Dkt. No. 184-3. The court denied the other proposed redactions in Dkt. Nos. 180-4 and 180-5.
Rulings on Apple business information
Apple also sought to redact descriptions of Touch ID functionality and its proprietary implementation, including source-code information, as well as market research, consumer-use data, customer surveys, product analyses, and usage metrics. The court held that Apple’s supporting declarations repeated conclusory assertions and did not provide the required specific factual showing of a compelling reason for secrecy. The court therefore denied sealing for Dkt. Nos. 152, 156, and 175.
The court also denied sealing for Dkt. Nos. 142 and 166 because the parties that had designated the material stated that they did not seek to seal those documents.
Further orders and disposition
For Dkt. No. 125, the court directed the parties to file one revised joint motion to seal by November 23, 2022, and stated that unreasonable sealing requests could be sanctioned. The court terminated Dkt. No. 125 without prejudice. It also directed the parties to file revised redacted versions of Dkt. Nos. 180-4 and 180-5, along with unredacted versions of documents for which sealing was denied, within seven court days of the order.
The supplied text’s signature line does not clearly identify the judge by name, so the judge is reported here as the court.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.