Case Name: Frank Siciliano, et al. v Apple, Inc.
Case No.: 2013-1-CV-257676

This is a putative class action arising from the automatic renewal of “In-App Subscriptions” for digital content through defendant Apple Inc.’s “App Store.” Before the Court is Apple’s unopposed motion to seal limited portions of the Court’s April 13th, 2017 tentative ruling and April 21st, 2017 order on Apple’s motion for summary judgment, plaintiff’s motion for class certification, and related motions to seal.

I. Legal Standard

“The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish: (1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).)

“Courts have found that, under appropriate circumstances, various statutory privileges, trade secrets, and privacy interests, when properly asserted and not waived, may constitute overriding interests.” (In re Providian Credit Card Cases (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 292, 298, fn. 3.) In addition, confidential matters relating to the business operations of a party may be sealed where public revelation of the information would interfere with the party’s ability to effectively compete in the marketplace. (See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (Unity Pictures Corp.) (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1285-1286.)

Where some material within a document warrants sealing, but other material does not, the document should be edited or redacted if possible, to accommodate both the moving party’s overriding interest and the strong presumption in favor of public access. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d)(4), (5).) In such a case, the moving party should take a line-by-line approach to the information in the document, rather than framing the issue to the court on an all-or-nothing basis. (In re Providian, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at p. 309.)

II. Analysis

Apple moves to seal only two pieces of information reflected in the Court’s tentative ruling and order: (1) the number of class members, based on Apple’s confidential sales data, and (2) confidential information regarding the process by which Apple reviews and approves applications by third-party developers. Apple’s counsel submits a declaration indicating that this information is commercially valuable and its disclosure would prejudice Apple. The same information, reflected in other documents, has already been filed under seal pursuant to the Court’s April 21st order, and Apple has submitted a redacted public version of the tentative ruling and order at issue here.

As discussed in its prior order, the Court finds that this information is appropriately filed under seal, and the factors set forth in rule 2.550(d) are satisfied under the circumstances.

III. Conclusion and Order

The motion to seal is GRANTED.

The Court will prepare the order.