Apple Inc. v. NSO Group Technologies Limited
- James Donato
- 3:21-cv-09078
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Apple Inc. v. NSO Group Technologies Limited, Judge Donato granted NSO’s sealing requests based primarily on comity with Israeli courts.
NSO Group Technologies Limited’s sealing requests were granted, while the sealed materials remain subject to a possible later unsealing request by a party or nonparty.
What happened
Apple Inc. v. NSO Group Technologies Limited concerned NSO’s requests to keep materials connected to its motion to dismiss from public view.
The court explained that court records are generally open to the public and that sealing requires specific, strong reasons. NSO based its requests on representations that Israeli courts treat the materials similarly.
Judge Donato granted the sealing requests, relying primarily on respect for the Israeli courts. The order did not prevent a party or nonparty from later asking to unseal the documents. The court also noted that it had denied NSO’s motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Apple Inc. v. NSO Group Technologies Limited · No. 3:21-cv-09078
- James Donato
- Jan. 23, 2024
Background
NSO Group Technologies Limited made several requests to seal materials connected with its motion to dismiss. The requests were based on NSO’s representations that the materials received similar treatment by courts in Israel. The court noted that it had already denied the motion to dismiss.
Legal standard
The court described a strong presumption that court records should be accessible to the public. A party seeking to seal records connected with dispositive motions must provide a compelling reason supported by specific facts. General claims that information is confidential, or the fact that the parties designated material as confidential under a protective order, are not enough by themselves.
Ruling
The court granted NSO’s sealing requests, relying primarily on comity, meaning respect for the authority and proceedings of another country’s courts. The order was without prejudice to a later request by a party or nonparty to unseal the documents. The court entered the order on January 23, 2024.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.