Taction Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TACTION TECHNOLOGY, INC., Case No.: 21-CV-812 TWR (JLB)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT 13 v. APPLE INC.’S UNOPPOSED MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS 14 APPLE INC., UNDER SEAL 15 Defendant. (ECF Nos. 225, 226, 228, 229) 16

17 Presently before the Court are Defendant Apple Inc.’s (1) Unopposed Renewed 18 Motion to File Portions of Plaintiff Taction Technology, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Amended 19 Invalidity Contentions (ECF No. 204) Under Seal (“Renewed Mot. to Seal,” ECF No. 225), 20 filed in response to the Court’s February 24, 2023 Order Denying Without Prejudice 21 Plaintiff Taction Technology, Inc.’s Unopposed Motion to File Documents Under Seal (the 22 “Prior Order,” ECF No. 219), and (2) Unopposed Motion to File Portions of Apple’s 23 Opposition to Motion to Strike Amended Invalidity Contentions Under Seal (“Mot. to Seal 24 Opp’n,” ECF No. 228) (together, the “Motions to Seal”). In the Prior Order, the Court 25 denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s request to file under seal portions of its memorandum 26 of points and authorities in support of its Motion to Strike (“Memo.”) and the entirety of 27 Exhibits A through I to the Declaration of Gavin Synder in Support of Taction’s Motion to 28 Strike (“Snyder Decl.”) on the grounds that Plaintiff had failed to comply with the 1 undersigned’s Standing Order for Civil Cases or to demonstrate the requisite compelling 2 reasons. (See Prior Order at 2–3.) Through the Renewed Motion to Seal, Defendant seeks 3 to file under seal more limited redactions to Plaintiff’s Memorandum and Exhibits A 4 through I to the Snyder Declaration. (See generally Renewed Mot. to Seal; see also ECF 5 No. 226 (lodged sealed documents).) Through the Motion to Seal Opposition, Defendant 6 also seeks to file under seal portions of its Opposition to Plaintiff Taction Technology, 7 Inc.’s Motion to Strike Apple’s Amended Invalidity Contentions (“Opp’n”) and Exhibits 8 5 and 9 through 11 to the Declaration of Seth M. Sproul in Support of Apple Inc.’s 9 Opposition (“Sproul Decl.”). (See generally Mot. to Seal Opp’n; see also ECF No. 229 10 (sealed lodged documents).) 11 As the Court previously indicated, (see Prior Order at 2 (citing Applications in 12 Internet Time, LLC v. Salesforce, Inc., No. 3:13-CV-00628-RCJ-CLB, 2022 WL 2953429, 13 at *1 (D. Nev. July 26, 2022))), Defendant must articulate “compelling reasons” to file 14 these documents under seal. Here, Defendant broadly attests that the materials it seeks to 15 file under seal “contain confidential technical information concerning Apple’s [accused] 16 products that, if made publicly available, would reveal Apple’s trade secrets and technical 17 know-how to the competitive harm of Apple.” (See ECF No. 225-1 (“Tio Decl.”) ¶¶ 3–12; 18 ECF No. 228-1 (“Sproul Sealing Decl.”) ¶¶ 3–7.) Although light on details, upon a close 19 review of the proposed redactions, the Court concludes that Defendant has demonstrated 20 compelling reasons to file under seal those limited portions of the memoranda and exhibits 21 that have been lodged under seal. See, e.g., Orthopaedic Hosp. v. Encore Med., L.P., No. 22 19-CV-970 JLS (AHG), 2021 WL 1966121, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2021) (concluding 23 that compelling reasons existed to seal “technical documents . . . includ[ing] schematic 24 diagrams, specification sheets, and other documents with information about product 25 components, measurements, formulas, and processes” because “these exhibits contain 26 proprietary, trade secret, and technical information that . . . is subject to improper use, 27 resulting in competitive harm to Defendant if publicly disclosed and made available to 28 competitors”); Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 1 || 7429304, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2016) (finding compelling reasons to seal narrowly 2 ||tailored request as to motion to strike and exhibits containing “information about the 3 technical operation of the products”). The Court therefore GRANTS Defendants’ Motions 4 ||to Seal (ECF Nos. 225, 228). The Clerk of Court SHALL FILE UNDER SEAL the 5 ||documents previously lodged under seal at ECF Nos. 226 and 229, and Plaintiff SHALL 6 || PUBLICLY FILE redacted versions of the documents lodged under seal at ECF No. 226. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || Dated: March 20, 2023 □□ 9 [ odd (a (re 10 Honorable Todd W. Robinson United States District Judge 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28