Alivecor, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

Background

AliveCor filed several administrative motions asking the court to consider sealing portions of filings and exhibits containing Apple’s confidential business material. Apple filed declarations supporting those requests. Apple also filed administrative motions concerning AliveCor’s confidential business material, and AliveCor filed a supporting declaration.

The parties jointly agreed that limited portions of the court’s earlier Order Denying Motion for an Adverse Jury Instruction should remain sealed. The materials at issue included filings and exhibits connected to AliveCor’s motion for an adverse jury instruction, as well as specified portions of the earlier order.

Legal standard

The court explained that courts in the Ninth Circuit use two standards for sealing court records. The “compelling reasons” standard applies to information connected to motions deciding the merits of a claim or defense. The less restrictive “good cause” standard applies to information connected to non-dispositive filings—filings that do not decide the ultimate merits of the case.

The court applied the good-cause standard because the underlying dispute was non-dispositive. It stated that courts may seal confidential research, development, commercial, business, and financial information when disclosure could harm a litigant’s competitive position.

Findings and ruling

The court found that Apple demonstrated that portions of the filings and exhibits identified in the order should remain sealed. It also found that limited portions of the earlier order should remain sealed because they contained Apple’s highly confidential business-strategy information and non-public information about its data-management practices. The court stated that disclosure could cause economic harm, put Apple at a competitive disadvantage, or reveal information about how Apple maintains and processes confidential information.

The court separately found that AliveCor demonstrated that portions of certain exhibits containing its confidential business material should remain sealed.

For good cause shown, the court ordered the portions identified by page and line number in the table to remain under seal. The listed materials included entire documents and selected portions of filings, declarations, exhibits, and the earlier Order Denying Motion for an Adverse Jury Instruction. This sealing order did not decide the ultimate merits of any claim in the case.