Cohen v. Apple Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6

8 ANDREW COHEN, et al., 9 Plaintiffs, No. C 19–05322 WHA

10 v.

11 APPLE INC., ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL BILL OF COSTS 12 Defendant.

13 14 Apple seeks to seal information in its bill of costs, specifically portions of invoices 15 pertinent to its allegedly confidential relationship with an e-discovery vendor, including rates 16 negotiated with the vendor. These redactions are warranted by an “overriding interest,” Apple 17 contends, because they could result in competitive harm. Apple explains (Handler Decl. ¶ 2): 18

[I]nvoices reveal confidential and sensitive information regarding 19 Apple’s pricing agreements with OpenText. This information is confidential and proprietary business information that could be 20 used to Apple’s competitive disadvantage, both in negotiating strategies with other e-discovery vendors who would gain an unfair 21 negotiating position over Apple by knowing the rates that it has paid competitor e-discovery vendors, and in its business 22 relationship with OpenText, who would be substantially harmed from public disclosure of their proprietary rates and the size of the 23 discount provided to Apple (as opposed to the rates it extends to other clients, both present and future). Publishing this data would 24 reveal confidential pricing strategy and cause harm to Apple and its relationship with OpenText. 25 26 The proposed redactions do not cover the nature of the services or the total amounts of costs. 27 Assertion of a potential competitive risk “may not rely on vague boilerplate language or 1 portion thereof remains sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5. The “compelling reasons” standard set out 2 in Kamakana requires a district court to “base its decision on a compelling reason and 3 articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” 447 F.3d 4 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). Preserving competitive advantage, including that stemming from 5 information in vendor invoices, has been recognized as a compelling reason. Ctr. for Auto 6 Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2016); Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google 7 Inc., No. C 10-03561-WHA (N.D. Cal. July 11, 2012), Dkt. 1218 (sealing vendor invoices); 8 GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc., 2015 WL 4381244, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 16, 2015) (same). 9 Apple has asserted with particularity that competitive harm to both Apple and its third- 10 party vendor would arise from revealing the negotiated rates. Redactions of specific rates, 11 given that the nature of the cost and the total amount of the bill of costs remain public, do not a 12 hamper the public’s understanding of this case.

13 The motion to seal is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 615 16 Dated: July 6, 2021 17

Z 18

LIAM ALSUP 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28