Hazlitt v. Apple Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

JANE DOE, by and through next friend

JOHN DOE, RICHARD ROBINSON,

YOLANDA BROWN, JONATHAN

LEBLOND, ANGELA STEVENS, and

PATRICIA ORRIS, on behalf of

themselves and all other persons

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 3:20-CV-421-NJR

APPLE INC.,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:

Pending before the Court are three motions filed by Defendant Apple Inc.

(“Apple”) to maintain under seal certain information that it designated as “Protected

Material” pursuant to the Protective Orders entered in this case. (Docs. 199, 208, 217).

Plaintiffs oppose the motions, arguing that Apple has failed to meet its burden of

demonstrating good cause for keeping the information sealed. (Docs. 203, 218, 223).

“Documents that affect the disposition of federal litigation are presumptively open

to public view.” Goesel v. Boley Int’l (H.K.) Ltd., 738 F.3d 831, 833 (7th Cir. 2013). This

presumption allows “interested members of the public, including lawyers, journalists,

and government officials, to know who’s using the courts, to understand judicial

decisions, and to monitor the judiciary’s performance of its duties.” Id. The Seventh

Circuit has held that “[s]ecrecy is fine at the discovery stage, before the material enters

the judicial record.” Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. Abbott Lab’ys, 297 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2002)

(citing Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (1984)). “But those documents, usually a

small subset of all discovery, that influence or underpin the judicial decision are open to

public inspection unless they meet the definition of trade secrets or other categories of

bona fide long-term confidentiality.” Id.; see also City of Greenville, Ill. v. Syngenta Crop

Prot., LLC, 764 F.3d 695, 697 (7th Cir. 2014) (presumption that court documents are public

can be rebutted if the records contain trade secrets or “if a statute, rule, or privilege

justifies confidentiality”). While genuine trade secrets may be sealed long-term, “most

portions of discovery that are filed and form the basis of judicial action must eventually

be released.” Union Oil Co. of California v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 568 (7th Cir. 2000).

Because of the strong presumption toward public disclosure of court files and

documents, the burden is on the party seeking confidentiality to show good cause for

keeping the documents from public view. Heraeus Kulzer, GmbH v. Biomet, Inc., 881 F.3d

550, 566 (7th Cir. 2018). “The determination of good cause cannot be elided by allowing

the parties to seal whatever they want . . . The judge is the primary representative of the

public interest in the judicial process and is duty-bound therefore to review any request

to seal the record (or part of it).” Citizens First Nat. Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.,

178 F.3d 943, 945 (7th Cir. 1999).

Here, Apple contends that the materials it seeks to keep sealed contain confidential

and competitively sensitive information regarding the planning, development, design,

and operation of Apple’s Photos app, various functions related to the Photos app and

other software, Apple’s related internal processes, and source code related to the Photos

app. Apple asserts that public disclosure of these materials could reveal proprietary

research or technical information about its products or their development, as well as its

internal procedures and processes, which could result in prejudice to Apple if disclosed

to third parties. Apple has provided the Court with a copy of each document and its

proposed redactions, as well as a chart that identifies why it believes each document or

portion thereof should remain sealed.

Plaintiffs, in response, contend that Apple has not analyzed, in detail, why each of

its proposed redactions should remain sealed from public view and, instead, refers to

boilerplate reasons such as “confidential and proprietary business information and

technical information related to its intellectual property” or “source code.” Plaintiffs also

argue that Apple has neither identified what the “proprietary business information” or

the “technical information” that must be protected consists of, nor has it attempted to

demonstrate that the information it seeks to seal constitutes trade secrets. (Id.).

Furthermore, they argue, Apple does not dispute that the information in the exhibits will

influence the Court’s decisions on Daubert motions and class certification. (Id.). Thus, they

should be available to the public.

The Illinois Trade Secrets Act, 765 ILCS 1065/2(d)(1)–(2), provides the following

definition of “trade secret”:

(d) “Trade secret” means information, including but not limited to,

technical or non-technical data, a formula, pattern, compilation,

program, device, method, technique, drawing, process, financial data,

or list of actual or potential customers or suppliers, that:

(1) is sufficiently secret to derive economic value, actual or potential,

from not being generally known to other persons who can obtain

economic value from its disclosure or use; and

(2) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the

circumstances to maintain its secrecy or confidentiality.

Hillman v. Toro Co., No. 4:21-CV-04081-SLD-JEH, 2024 WL 4353032, at *18–19 (C.D. Ill.

Sept. 30, 2024) (citing 765 ILCS 1065/2(d)(1)–(2); In re Bank One Sec. Litig., 222 F.R.D. 582,

587–88 (N.D. Ill. 2004) (using the Illinois Trade Secrets Act definition of “trade secret” to

evaluate whether certain parts of the record should be sealed)).

The Court has reviewed each proposed redaction and the contents of the full

documents Apple would like to remain sealed, as well as its asserted rationale for keeping

the information sealed.1 Some of the materials that Apple seeks to keep sealed consist of

information related to Apple’s intellectual property, research and development, and

source code (in addition to Plaintiffs’ PII) that, if disclosed, could allow others to obtain

a competitive and economic advantage. On the other hand, other documents contain

general statistics about Apple’s customer base in Illinois, publicly available information

about the Photos app, or other materials that simply do not constitute trade secrets.

Thus, for good cause shown, and out of an abundance of caution, the Court

GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Apple’s motions to maintain certain information

under seal. (Docs. 199, 208, 217). The Court will maintain the seal over the documents

Apple identified, with the exception of the following documents that the Court has

determined do not contain trade secrets or any proprietary business information:

1 Apple also seeks to maintain under seal certain portions of its brief and exhibits to its Motion to Strike

Plaintiffs’ Untimely June 27, 2024 Expert Opinions. (Docs. 196, 197). However, Apple has since withdrawn

its Motion to Strike. Because the motion has been withdrawn, the Court DENIES as moot Apple’s motion

to maintain the seal over the documents in Doc. 197. (See Doc. 199 at pp. 10-11).

© Doc. 177-1

e Doc. 177-11 and Doc. 194-2

e Doc. 194

e Doc. 194-3

e Doc. 194-4

e Doc. 206 - with the exception of the redactions in footnote 1

e Doc. 211 and Doc. 213

e Doc. 213-1

e Doc. 213-2

The Court will revisit the propriety of maintaining the seal over this information

at the conclusion of the case.

Finally, as to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendant to Remove Its Blanket

Confidentiality Designations (Doc. 180), the Special Master informed the Court that the

Parties have been directed to meet and confer with each other and with the Special Master

on this issue prior to trial. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 180) is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 28, 2025 Tl g

NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL

Chief U.S. District Judge

Page 5 of 5