Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SMITH INTERFACE TECHNOLOGIES, Case No.: 23-CV-1187 TWR (BJW) LLC, 12 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF Plaintiff, 13 SMITH INTERFACE v. TECHNOLOGIES, LLC’S 14 UNOPPOSED MOTION TO FILE APPLE INC., 15 DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL Defendant. 16 (ECF Nos. 241, 242) 17 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Smith Interface Technologies, LLC’s (“Smith 18 Interface’s”) Motion to File Under Seal Portions of Smith Interface’s Motion for Summary 19 Judgment and to Exclude Expert Testimony (“Mot. to Seal,” ECF No. 241), as well as 20 Defendant Apple Inc.’s (“Apple’s”) Supplemental Brief in Support of Smith Interface’s 21 Motion (“Suppl. Brief,” ECF No. 242). Smith Interface contends compelling reasons to 22 exist to file under seal portions of its Motion and accompanying Exhibits 1–7, 14–21, 23– 23 24, and 71–73 because they “contain trade secrets and Apple’s confidential business 24 information.” (Mot. to Seal at 4.) Specifically, “Exhibits 1–5, 16, and 71–72 are excerpts 25 of expert reports served in this case, portions of which describe Apple’s proprietary 26 technology, based on deposition testimony from Apple’s engineers that Apple has 27 designated as containing its confidential information[;]” “Exhibits 6, 14, and 25 are 28 1 Apple’s responses to requests for admission and interrogatories served by Smith Interface 2 that Apple has designated as containing Apple’s confidential information[;]” “Exhibits 7 3 and 73 are letters from counsel for the parties to the Honorable Brian J. White regarding 4 the service of supplemental expert reports that reference Apple’s source code[;]” “Exhibits 5 17–21 are excerpts from deposition transcripts of the depositions of Apple’s 30(b)(6) 6 witnesses in this case that involve discussion of Apple’s proprietary technology (in the case 7 of Exhibits 18–21), or Apple’s confidential financial statements and marketing strategy (in 8 the case of Exhibit 17)[,]” each of which has been designated by Apple under the Protective 9 Order; and “Exhibits 23 and 24 are confidential, internal financial documents produced by 10 Apple that show its sale of the accused products.” (Id.) In its Supplemental Brief, Apple 11 corroborates Smith Interface’s designations and states that the identified portions of Smith 12 Interface’s Motion and Exhibits 1–7, 14–21, 23–24, and 71–73 “each contain reference to 13 confidential technical information contained in Apple’s source code, and confidential 14 technical information created during the research, development, and/or engineering phase 15 of Apple’s product development process.” (Suppl. Brief at 3.) 16 Upon a close review of the proposed redactions, the Court concludes that Smith 17 Interface has demonstrated compelling reasons to file under seal limited portions of its 18 Motion and Exhibits 1–7, 14–21, 23–24, and 71–73 in their entirety. See, e.g., Orthopaedic 19 Hosp. v. Encore Med., L.P, No. 19-CV-970-JLS (AHG), 2021 WL 1966121, at *2–3 (S.D. 20 Cal. Apr. 12, 2021) (finding the threat of competitive harm from disclosure of documents 21 containing proprietary, trade secret, and technical information specific to the party’s 22 technology at issue and confidential business practices outweighs the public’s right of 23 access because of the risk of competitive harm to that party if such information was 24 publicly disclosed.) The Court therefore GRANTS Smith Interface’s Motion to Seal (ECF 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 || No. 308), and the Clerk of Court SHALL FILE UNDER SEAL the documents previously 2 lodged under seal at ECF No. 242. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: April 3, 2026 5 TED (2 (re 6 Honorable Todd W. Robinson United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28