Taction Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 3:2021cv00812 - Document 224 (S.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER denying without Prejudice Motions to File Document Under Seal (ECF Nos. 180 , 194 , 197 , 207 , 210 , 213 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt on 03/08/2023. (cxl1)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Taction Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc. Doc. 224 Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 224 Filed 03/08/23 PageID.5502 Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 TACTION TECHNOLOGY, INC., Case No.: 21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Plaintiff, 14 15 v. 16 APPLE INC., ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL Defendant. 17 [ECF Nos. 180, 194, 197, 207, 210, 213] 18 19 AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM. 20 21 Before the Court are six motions to file documents under seal filed by Plaintiff 22 Taction Technology, Inc. (“Plaintiff”), Defendant Apple Inc. (“Defendant”), and non- 23 parties Kenosha Investments LP (“Kenosha”) and Gronostaj Investments LLC 24 (“Gronostaj”). (See ECF Nos. 180, 194, 197, 207, 210, 213.) 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 224 Filed 03/08/23 PageID.5503 Page 2 of 9 Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 224 Filed 03/08/23 PageID.5504 Page 3 of 9 1 No. 181), along with the entirety of Exhibits B through E 1 (ECF Nos. 181-1, -2, -3, -4). 2 (ECF No. 180.) As the Motion seeks to protect, inter alia, Plaintiff’s privilege logs, the 3 Court directed Plaintiff to file a response addressing the legal basis for filing under seal. 4 (ECF No. 191.) 5 Defendant’s Motion to File Documents Under Seal. (ECF No. 193.) On February 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed its Response in Support of 6 On the same day, Plaintiff also filed a renewed motion to file under seal portions of 7 Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Ex Parte Motion (ECF No. 195), portions of Gavin 8 Snyder’s Declaration (ECF No. 195-1), and all of Exhibit A2 (ECF No. 195-2). (ECF No. 9 194.) Plaintiff’s 194 Motion seeks to protect the Plaintiff’s privilege logs and similar 10 deposition testimony as Defendant’s 180 Motion. (Compare ECF Nos. 180, 181 with ECF 11 Nos. 194, 195.) 12 B. 13 On February 10, 2023, the Court issued a supplemental briefing schedule regarding 14 Kenosha and Gronostaj’s Motion to Quash Defendant’s Subpoenas (ECF No. 149). (ECF 15 No. 183.) Pursuant to the Court’s Order, on February 17, 2023, Defendant filed a motion 16 to file under seal portions of its Supplemental Brief (ECF No. 198). (ECF No. 197.) On 17 February 24, 2023, Kenosha and Gronostaj filed a motion to file under seal portions of 18 their Response to Defendant’s Supplemental Brief (ECF No. 211). (ECF No. 210.) On 19 the same day, Plaintiff filed a motion to file under seal portions of its Response to 20 Defendant’s Supplemental Brief (ECF No. 214). (ECF No. 213.) Motions to Seal All Parties’ Supplemental Briefs 21 All three Motions seek to protect information the parties assert contain Kenosha and 22 Gronostaj’s “sensitive” and “confidential” business information. (ECF Nos. 197 at 2; 210 23 24 25 1 26 27 28 ECF Nos. 181-1 through 181-3 are Plaintiff’s privilege logs. ECF No. 181-4 is a transcript of the deposition testimony taken from Dr. James Biggs, Plaintiff’s Founder and Chief Technology Officer, on February 9, 2023. 2 ECF No. 195-2 is a transcript of Dr. Biggs’ deposition testimony from February 10, 2023. 3 21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 224 Filed 03/08/23 PageID.5505 Page 4 of 9 1 at 2; 213 at 2.) Additionally, Kenosha and Gronostaj seek to seal information regarding 2 Plaintiff’s privilege logs. (ECF Nos. 210 at 2; 211 at 2, 4.) 3 C. 4 On February 21, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to file under seal portions of its 5 Motion to Compel (ECF No. 208) and the entirety of Exhibits B through F (ECF Nos. 208- 6 1, -2, -3, -4, -5) and Exhibit H3 (ECF No. 208-6). (ECF No. 207.) 7 II. Motion to Seal Defendant’s Motion to Compel Legal Standard 8 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public 9 records and documents, including judicial records and documents,’” which is “justified by 10 the interest of citizens in ‘keep[ing] a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies.’” 11 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 12 Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597, 598 (1978)). As such, a party seeking 13 to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion must “articulate[] compelling 14 reasons supported by specific factual findings” that can surmount the “strong presumption 15 in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 16 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). 17 However, a different standard applies to non-dispositive motions. Kamakana, 447 18 F.3d at 1179. “Non[-]dispositive motions ‘are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, 19 to the underlying cause of action,’ and, as a result, the public’s interest in accessing 20 dispositive materials does ‘not apply with equal force’ to non-dispositive materials.” 21 Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana, 447 22 F.3d at 1179). “In light of the weaker public interest in non[-]dispositive materials, we 23 apply the ‘good cause’ standard when parties wish to keep them under seal.” Pintos, 605 24 25 26 27 28 3 ECF No. 208-1 is a transcript of Dr. Biggs’ deposition testimony from February 9 and 10, 2023. ECF Nos. 208-2 through 208-5 are Plaintiff’s privilege logs. ECF No. 2086 is Plaintiff’s Objections and Responses to Defendant’s Notice of Deposition for Dr. Biggs. 4 21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 224 Filed 03/08/23 PageID.5506 Page 5 of 9 1 F.3d at 678. “There may be ‘good cause’ to seal records that are privileged, contain trade 2 secrets, contain confidential research, development or commercial information, or if 3 disclosure of the information might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Mezzadri v. 4 Med. Depot, Inc., No. 14-CV-2330-AJB-DHB, 2015 WL 12564223, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 5 18, 2015). 6 III. Discussion 7 A. 8 As an initial matter, the moving parties in ECF Nos. 180, 197, 207, 210, and 213 are 9 Noncompliance with the Court’s Stipulated Protective Order seeking to file under seal information designated as confidential by a nonmoving party. 10 Where a motion to file documents under seal seeks to protect the confidential 11 information of another party, the non-designating party may not have sufficient knowledge 12 to inform the Court why the material warrants protection. As such, the Court’s Order 13 Entering Protective Order (“Protective Order”) sets forth a procedure where parties seeking 14 a motion to file documents under seal must confer prior to filing the motion. Specifically, 15 pursuant to Paragraph 22(e), “[i]f the application to file a document designated as 16 confidential under seal is being made by the non-designating party, then, upon request, the 17 designating party must promptly provide the applicant with a legal basis for the confidential 18 designation and the non-designating party must include the basis in the application.” (See 19 ECF No. 37 at ¶ 22(e).) 20 Here, in ECF Nos. 180, 197, 207, 210, and 213, the moving party is not the 21 designating party. Yet, the moving parties failed to seek and include a legal basis from the 22 designating party as required by the Protective Order. For all future motions to file under 23 seal, all parties are directed to read and comply with the procedures set forth in the 24 Protective Order. (See ECF No. 37 at ¶ 22(e).) 25 B. 26 Not only do five of the Motions fail to comply with Judge Burkhardt’s Civil 27 Chambers Rules (see ECF Nos. 180, 197, 207, 210, and 213), but all six also fail to make 28 the requisite showing of good cause. Failure to Set Forth Good Cause 5 21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 224 Filed 03/08/23 PageID.5507 Page 6 of 9 1 1. 2 ECF Nos. 180, 197, 207, and 210 rely solely on blanket claims that the 3 redacted information contains “sensitive [and] confidential business information” or 4 information “designated as Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” (See ECF Nos. 180 at 5 2; 197 at 2; 207 at 2; 210 at 2.) No other legal analysis is provided, much less analysis 6 specifically addressing the particular portions of each document the parties seek to redact, 7 as the Court expects. Accordingly, these Motions fail to demonstrate good cause. See, 8 e.g., Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Broad 9 allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not 10 satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.”) (quoting Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 11 1121 (3rd Cir. 1986)).4 Specificity Required 12 Further, a cursory review of the proposed redactions in all filings reveal that few, if 13 any, of the proposed redacted portions are likely to warrant filing under seal. For example, 14 in ECF No. 210, Kenosha and Gronostaj seek to seal the number of documents on their 15 privilege logs (ECF No. 211 at 2). Similarly, in ECF Nos. 180, 194, and 207, Plaintiff and 16 Defendant seek to seal the entirety of Dr. Biggs’ deposition testimony (ECF Nos. 181-4, 17 195-2, 208-1), many portions of which contain only publicly available information. (See, 18 e.g., ECF No. 181-4 at 1–7, 18.) 19 2. Sealing Plaintiff’s Privilege Logs 20 In ECF Nos. 180 and 207, Defendant seeks to seal in their entirety exhibits 21 comprised of Plaintiff’s privilege logs (ECF Nos. 181-1, -2, -3; 208-2, -3, -4, -5). (ECF 22 Nos. 180 at 2; 207 at 2.) Additionally, in ECF No. 210, Kenosha and Gronostaj seek to 23 seal information regarding the content of Plaintiff’s privilege logs (ECF No. 211 at 2). 24 (ECF No. 210 at 2.) 25 26 27 28 4 Plaintiff’s 213 Motion is more specific in that it only seeks to seal the numbers of certain subsets of documents in privilege logs and does include some analysis. However, the Motion fails to set forth good cause for sealing the proposed redacted information. 6 21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 224 Filed 03/08/23 PageID.5508 Page 7 of 9 1 All parties argue there are “[c]ompelling reasons” to seal the privilege logs but 2 support their allegations with only cursory references to “sensitive” and “confidential 3 business information” or designations as “Confidential,” “Confidential – Outside 4 Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” or “Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” (ECF Nos. 180 at 2; 5 193 at 2; 207 at 2; 210 at 2.) In its Response in Support of Defendant’s 180 Motion, 6 Plaintiff expounds that the privilege logs “contain details of [Plaintiff’s] confidential 7 business and professional relationships” protected by the professional conduct code and 8 “sensitive internal communications reflecting how [Plaintiff] has prepared for this 9 litigation and continues to manage this litigation.” (ECF No. 193 at 2.) 10 11 However, no party provides any authority to support the argument that general information provided on privilege logs merits protection. 5 12 In conclusion, the parties may have good cause to file under seal some subset of the 13 material they seek to redact in these six Motions; however, the current pleadings do not 14 provide enough specificity and authority for the Court to reach such a conclusion. 15 IV. 16 CONCLUSION For the aforementioned reasons, the Court hereby rules as follows: 17 • The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendant’s Motion to File Under 18 Seal its Ex Parte Discovery Motion (ECF No. 180). Defendant MAY FILE a 19 renewed motion to file under seal any information for which good cause exists 20 within fourteen (14) days of the electronic docketing of this Order. 21 Defendant choose not to file a renewed motion, Defendant SHALL PUBLICLY 22 FILE ECF No. 181 in its entirety, subject to the redaction of Dr. Bigg’s address, 23 within twenty-one (21) days of the electronic docketing of this Order. Should 24 25 26 27 28 5 The Court acknowledges that it previously sealed Plaintiff’s privilege logs based on agreement of the parties. This decision was reached through an informal conference and without legal analysis. (See ECF No. 92.) 7 21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 224 Filed 03/08/23 PageID.5509 Page 8 of 9 1 • The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Motion to File Under 2 Seal its Response (ECF No. 194). Plaintiff MAY FILE a renewed motion to file 3 under seal any information for which good cause exists within fourteen (14) days of 4 the electronic docketing of this Order. Should Plaintiff choose not to file a renewed 5 motion, Plaintiff SHALL PUBLICLY FILE ECF No. 195 in its entirety within 6 twenty-one (21) days of the electronic docketing of this Order. 7 • The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendant’s Motion to File Under 8 Seal its Supplemental Brief (ECF No. 197). Defendant MAY FILE a renewed 9 motion to file under seal any information for which good cause exists within fourteen 10 (14) days of the electronic docketing of this Order. Should Defendant choose not to 11 file a renewed motion, Defendant SHALL PUBLICLY FILE ECF No. 198 in its 12 entirety within twenty-one (21) days of the electronic docketing of this Order. 13 • The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendant’s Motion to File Under 14 Seal its Motion to Compel (ECF No. 207). Defendant MAY FILE a renewed 15 motion to file under seal any information for which good cause exists within fourteen 16 (14) days of the electronic docketing of this Order. Should Defendant choose not to 17 file a renewed motion, Defendant SHALL PUBLICLY FILE ECF No. 208 in its 18 entirety within twenty-one (21) days of the electronic docketing of this Order. 19 • The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Kenosha and Gronostaj’s Motion 20 to File Under Seal their Supplemental Brief (ECF No. 210). Kenosha and Gronostaj 21 MAY FILE a renewed motion to file under seal any information for which good 22 cause exists within fourteen (14) days of the electronic docketing of this Order. 23 Should Kenosha and Gronostaj choose not to file a renewed motion, Kenosha and 24 Gronostaj SHALL PUBLICLY FILE ECF No. 211 in its entirety within twenty- 25 one (21) days of the electronic docketing of this Order. 26 • The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Motion to File Under 27 Seal its Supplemental Brief (ECF No. 213). Plaintiff MAY FILE a renewed motion 28 to file under seal any information for which good cause exists within fourteen (14) 8 21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 224 Filed 03/08/23 PageID.5510 Page 9 of 9 1 days of the electronic docketing of this Order. Should Plaintiff choose not to file a 2 renewed motion, Plaintiff SHALL PUBLICLY FILE ECF No. 214 in its entirety 3 within twenty-one (21) days of the electronic docketing of this Order. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: March 8, 2023 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9 21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
