The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEAL AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART REQUEST FOR STAY
Before the Court is Apple's motion to seal portions of its Motion for Damages Enhancements and Permanent Injunction ("Damages Motion") and a range of documents filed in 21 support thereof. Apple also moves to seal some information pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), 22 on grounds that Samsung has designated it as confidential. For the reasons stated below, the court 23 GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Apple's motion to seal, and GRANTS in part and DENIES 24 in part Apple's request to stay the effect of this Order. 25
On August 9, 2012, the Court issued an order addressing the litigants' and third parties' 27 motions to seal that had been filed to that point (hereafter "August 9 Order"). ECF No. 1649. In the August 9 Order, the Court laid out several categories of information that were sealable under 2 Ninth Circuit law. Specifically, the Court addressed Apple's request to seal its financial 3 information, including product-specific profits, profit margins, unit sales, revenue, and costs. See 4 August 9 Order at 5. The Court ruled that it was "not persuaded that Apple's interest in sealing its 5 financial data outweighs the public's interest in accessing this information," id., and that "the 6 financial information that Apple seeks to seal is essential to each party's damages calculations," 7 thus increasing its value to the public. Id. at 6. Accordingly, the Court denied Apple's motion to 8 seal a range of documents containing this type of financial information.
Apple then appealed this denial to the Federal Circuit. This Court stayed its August Order with regard to the financial information until the Federal Circuit ruled on the parties' motions to stay. ECF No. 1754. The Federal Circuit stayed this Court's August 9 Order pending final resolution of the Appeal. Federal Circuit Case No. 12-1600, Dkt. No. 39. Thus, as of now, 13 the information remains sealed. 14
16 recognized a "general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial 17 records and documents." Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). 18
"Unless a particular court record is one 'traditionally kept secret,' a 'strong presumption in favor of 19 access' is the starting point. Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th 20
In order to overcome this strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must 22 articulate justifications for sealing that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure. See id. at 23
1178-79. Because the public's interest in non-dispositive motions is relatively low, a party seeking 24 to seal a document attached to a non-dispositive motion need only demonstrate "good cause." 25
Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (applying "good cause" standard 26 to all non-dispositive motions, because such motions "'are often unrelated, or only tangentially 27 related, to the underlying cause of action'" (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179)).
As this Court has explained in its previous sealing orders in this case, courts have Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)).
2 judgment, is at the heart of the interest in ensuring the 'public's understanding of the judicial 3 process and of significant public events.'" Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Valley 4
Broadcasting Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Nev., 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986)). Thus, 5 a party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion or presented at trial must 6 articulate "compelling reasons" in favor of sealing. See id. at 1178. "In general, 'compelling 7 reasons' . . . exist when such 'court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,' such 8 as the use of records to . . . release trade secrets." Id. at 1179 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). The 9
Conversely, "the resolution of a dispute on the merits, whether by trial or summary Ninth Circuit has adopted the Restatement's definition of "trade secret" for purposes of sealing, 10 holding that "[a] 'trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of 11 information which is used in one's business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an 568, 569-70 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Restatement of Torts § 757, cmt. b). Additionally, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). 18 case cannot fairly be characterized as "unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying 19 cause of action." Kamakana, 447 F. 3d at 1179. To the contrary, these motions implicate the very 20 core of Apple's claims and Apple's desired relief in bringing suit against Samsung. As evidenced 21 by the plethora of media and general public scrutiny of the preliminary injunction proceedings and 22 the trial, the public has a significant interest in these court filings, and therefore the strong 23 presumption of public access applies. Accordingly, the "compelling reasons" standard applies to 24
Apple's Damages Motion, and to documents supporting it. advantage over competitors who do not know or use it." In re Electronic Arts, 298 Fed. App'x 13
"compelling reasons" may exist if sealing is required to prevent judicial documents from being
used "'as sources of business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing.'" Id. at 16
As this Court has previously ruled, motions concerning the remedies to ...