Apple Inc. v. NSO Group Technologies Limited

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 APPLE INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-09078-JD

7 Plaintiff,

ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL

v. 8

9 NSO GROUP TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, et al., 10 Defendants.

11 12 A hallmark of our federal judiciary is the “strong presumption in favor of access to court 13 records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003); see In re 14 Google Play Store Antitrust Litig., 556 F. Supp. 3d 1106, 1107 (N.D. Cal. 2021). Public access 15 maintains confidence in the fair and impartial administration of justice, and protects the integrity 16 and independence of the courts. This is why the business of the federal judiciary is done in open 17 court. 18 In limited circumstances, there may be grounds for curtailing public access. This is an 19 exception to the rule, and so a party requesting that a document or evidence be sealed from the 20 public needs to present a good reason explaining why. A compelling reason supported by specific 21 facts is needed before the Court will consider sealing records…