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. 308, 309) 16

17 Presently before the Court is Defendant Apple Inc.’s Unopposed Motion to File 18 Under Seal Portions of Apple’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Daubert Motion to Exclude 19 Opinions of Defendant’s Experts (“Mot. to Seal,” ECF No. 308), in which Apple contends 20 that “[c]ompelling reasons exist to file portions of [its] Opposition and accompanying 21 Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 12 under seal.”1 (See id. at 1.) Specifically, “Exhibits 22 1, 10, and 12 contain portions of Apple’s and Taction’s expert reports,” (see ECF No. 308- 23 1 (“Tio Decl.”) ¶ 3), i.e., the Opening Expert Report of Michael Zinn, Ph.D., (see ECF No. 24 309-1 (“Ex. 1”)); the Expert Rebuttal Report of Julie H. Know, CPA, CFA, CFF, (see ECF 25 No. 309-8 (“Ex. 10”)); and the Rebuttal Expert Report of Michael Zinn, Ph.D. (See ECF 26 27 1 Specifically, Apple seeks to file under seal Exhibits 2 through 7 in their entirety and only portions of 28 Apple’s Opposition and Exhibits 1 and 10 through 12. (Compare ECF Nos. 310-1–14 (proposed public 1 ||No. 309-10 ‘Ex. 12”).) “Exhibit 11 contains excerpts of the deposition testimony of 2 || Apple’s damages expert, Julie Knox,” (Tio Decl. § 4); “Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 are internal 3 technical documents created by Apple,” (Tio Decl. §] 5); and “Exhibit 6 is a confidential 4 technical document produced by third party supplied AAC.” (Tio Decl. 4 6.) Portions of 5 ||Apple’s opposition discuss these documents. (See id. J§ 2-6.) Apple maintains that 6 || disclosure of these documents would “harm [its] ability to maintain [its and its supplier’s] 7 || business and competitive position [in the market].” and/or allow “competitors to obtain and 8 ||improper business advantage.” (See id. (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 9 ||589, 598 (1978); Orthopaedic Hosp. v. Encore Med., L.P., No. 19-CV-970 JLS (AHG), 10 WL 1966121, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2021)); Mezzadri v. Med. Depot, Inc., No. 14- 11 ev-2330, 2015 WL 12564223, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2015)).) 12 Upon a close review of the proposed redactions, the Court concludes that Apple has 13 ||demonstrated compelling reasons to file under seal Exhibits 2 through 7 in their entirety 14 |/and those limited portions of Apple’s opposition and Exhibits 1 and 10 through 12 that 15 || have been lodged under seal. See, e.g., Orthopaedic Hosp., 2021 WL 1966121, at *2. The 16 || Court therefore GRANTS Apple’s Motion to Seal (ECF No. 308), and the Clerk of Court 17 || SHALL FILE UNDER SEAL the documents previously lodged under seal at ECF No. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: June 13, 2023 — 21 [ odd (2 re Honorable Todd W. Robinson United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28