• Litigation

    Grewal Denies Apple’s Motions to Seal—Grewal-Style

    Is there a fan club for Magistrate Judge Grewal yet? Recently seated on the bench in 2010 and with a pedigree of decided interest, the judge keeps it interesting:

    This afternoon the court sat down to consider the various motions on the docket that are pending and in some cases submitted in this patent case. Coffee in hand, and eager to turn to the substantive and intellectually stimulating disputes regarding infringement, willfulness, and the like, the court was stopped dead in its tracks by the usual culprit in such crimes: various motions to file materials under seal.

    Stating that parties all too often misunderstand what level of harm is “sufficient to keep the public from knowing what is happening in courts such as this one that it pays for,” the Court explains that “[w]hile the court cannot offer an all-encompassing definition of harm for this purpose, it can say what is not harm. Disclosing an expert’s testimony about his patent validity opinions is not harm. Disclosing an inventor’s testimony about what exactly it is he claimed in his patents is not harm. Disclosing what products a party had sold to the public is not harm. It is certainly not harm that other litigants in other cases involving the asserted patent might come to know certain positions a party is taking in this case.”
    The Court makes an apparent  misstep in its concluding paragraphs, confusing the plaintiff with defendant, but the motions to seal were Apple’s (Dkt. Nos. 342, 344, 347, and 349).

    Apple is represented by DLA Piper and Greenberg Traurig. Case No. 5:11-CV-01079-PSG (N.D. Cal.).