More denials from the magistrate judge in Apple v. Samsung on new requests from the parties to seal documents. More sealing requests, you ask? Does this ever end? Yes, another long list, mostly denied. To the magistrate judge, the Hon. Paul Grewal, it feels like an invasion of
Tribbles -- everywhere where he looks, there are more of them:
"What tribbles are to the Starship Enterprise, Captain Kirk, and Mr.
Spock, the parties’ ever-multiplying sealing and redaction requests are
to this case, Judge Koh, and the undersigned."
I know. All of a sudden, you like him.
: )
But Apple and Samsung must be groaning. The trouble with Tribbles, of course, is that there's no seeming end to them -- "they are born pregnant" and threaten to consume all the onboard supplies, but Judge Grewal, like Spock, is immune to their effects, so he refuses most of the requests, saying over and over that the parties have failed to show in a particularized way how revealing the materials would be harmful. But as I read the list I can see how they might be, particularly because the parties are suing each other all over the place, not just in this one courtroom. Having said that, as a member of the public, I'm personally looking forward to reading every last one of them. I find these Tribbles adorably appealing.
His orders:
02/01/2013 - 2222 -
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL by Judge Paul
S. Grewal denying 600 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying
613 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and
denying in part 781 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting
in part and denying in part 782 Administrative Motion to File Under
Seal; granting in part and denying in part 801 Administrative Motion to
File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 819 Administrative
Motion to File Under Seal; denying 857 Administrative Motion to File
Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 934 Administrative
Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 939
Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 965 Administrative
Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 984
Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying
in part 986 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 987
Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying
in part 990 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part
and denying in part 994 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal;
granting in part and denying in part 996 Administrative Motion to File
Under Seal; denying 1041 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal;
granting in part and denying in part 1044 Administrative Motion to File
Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 1047 Administrative
Motion to File Under Seal; denying 1056 Administrative Motion to File
Under Seal; denying 1067 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal;
denying 1074 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 1088
Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying
in part 2149 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, granting 2141 .
(psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2013) Modified on 2/1/2013 (ofr,
COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/01/2013)
02/01/2013 - 2223 -
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENT IN PART by Judge Paul S. Grewal
granting 2117 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (psglc2, COURT
STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2013) (Entered: 02/01/2013)
As you can see, he lets them seal some documents and some in part and some he'll let them try again if they file a more particularized motion. But here's a few items from the long list that he won't let them seal. Do you think if you were Apple or Samsung, you'd prefer that we in the peanut gallery -- and competitors and their lawyers -- not get to read the following from this excerpted list?
I know I'd be interested in reading all these experts telling all the ways Samsung doesn't infringe Apple's patents, including the expert stating that some of them are invalid. And wouldn't everyone like to know exactly what Samsung components Apple uses in its products or what Apple did in discovery that was "problematic"? And I know without asking you that you are interested in details on "information about the operating systems in its devices". For Apple, this case has been a bit of a worst nightmare, in that the more people learn about the nuts and bolts of the company's business, the less magical it all appears. It's like pulling back the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. Magistrate judges don't count that as a good reason to seal, of course, but to tell you the truth, I feel for Apple. This lawsuit has been detrimental to its brand in a very big way. Even if they someday collect a billion dollars, which I doubt, things will never be the same. But then again, Apple initiated this lawsuit, and once you file a lawsuit, the other side does get to rummage through your underwear drawer, and in the US, you are gambling that a judge will let you keep certain materials from the public. In this courtroom, that gamble failed.
|