Apple Inc. v. Rivos, Inc.
- Pitts
- 5:22-cv-02637
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Apple v. Rivos, Judge Pitts granted and denied portions of three sealing motions and ordered redacted documents filed publicly.
Apple Inc., Rivos, Inc., the other defendants identified in the caption, and members of the public seeking access to the court filings.
What happened
Apple Inc. v. Rivos, Inc. concerns three requests to keep parts of court filings secret. Apple sought to seal information in its Third Amended Complaint, including material defendants had marked confidential. Defendants sought to seal parts of their Answer, Counterclaims, and an exhibit.
The court granted the requests for specified highlighted portions of the Complaint and its redline version. It denied requests covering material that the relevant party did not seek to keep secret and denied other requests because Apple had not shown reasons strong enough to overcome the public’s general right to access court records. The parties must file properly redacted versions of the documents on the public docket within 14 days, subject to the order’s timing and possible further submission by Apple.
Judge P. Casey Pitts issued the sealing order on October 18, 2023.
The detailed version
- Apple Inc. v. Rivos, Inc. · No. 5:22-cv-02637
- Pitts
- Oct. 18, 2023
Background
The court considered three administrative motions to seal court filings. Apple sought to seal portions of its Third Amended Complaint containing its own confidential information in Docket No. 254. Apple also sought to seal portions of that complaint that defendants had designated confidential in Docket No. 255, but defendants did not seek to seal any part of the complaint. Defendants sought to seal portions of their Answer to Apple’s Third Amended Complaint, their Counterclaims, and a related exhibit in Docket No. 275. Apple supported sealing some, but not all, of that material.
The court applied the strong presumption that court records should be available to the public. It explained that a party seeking to seal a record must give specific factual reasons that outweigh the public’s interest in access, and that sealing requests must be narrowly tailored under the applicable local rule.
Rulings
The administrative sealing motions were granted as to these portions:
- The yellow and blue highlights in the Complaint, Docket No. 254-3, except paragraph 181. - The yellow and blue highlights in Exhibit G (Redline), Docket No. 254-4, except paragraph CLXXXI.
The motions to seal another party’s material were denied as to these portions because the party whose material was involved did not seek to have it sealed:
- The green highlights in the Complaint, Docket No. 254-3. - The green highlights in Exhibit G (Redline), Docket No. 254-4. - All highlights in the Answer, Docket No. 275-2. - The highlights in paragraph 24 of the Counterclaims, Docket No. 275-3.
The motions to seal Apple’s material were denied as to these remaining portions because Apple’s motion and supporting declaration did not establish a basis for sealing that outweighed the strong presumption of public access:
- The highlights in paragraph 181 of the Complaint, Docket No. 254-3. - The highlights in paragraph CLXXXI of Exhibit G (Redline), Docket No. 254-4. - The highlights in paragraphs 38 and 42 of the Counterclaims, Docket No. 275-3. - The entire Exhibit A, Docket No. 275-4.
Required filings and possible further request
Within 14 days after entry of the order, but no sooner than seven days after entry, the parties must file each document on the public docket with redactions consistent with the order. Apple may choose to submit a revised declaration within five days addressing paragraph 181 of its Third Amended Complaint and the corresponding redline, paragraphs 38 and 42 of the Counterclaims, and the corresponding Exhibit A. If Apple submits that revised declaration, defendants must not file the disputed material publicly until the court issues another ruling on Apple’s sealing request.
Judge
Judge P. Casey Pitts issued the order on October 18, 2023.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.