75 F. Supp. 3d 1271
N.D. Cal.2014Background
- Media Intervenors moved to intervene to obtain access to and copy the Jobs video deposition in a long-running antitrust case.
- Steve Jobs deposition was April 12, 2011; Jobs later died and the deposition was recorded audiovisually.
- During trial in December 2014, a large public viewing setup and five copies of admitted exhibits were arranged for press access.
- Cameras were prohibited; only excerpts of the Jobs deposition were shown in court, not admitted as exhibits.
- The motion sought copying access beyond what had already been granted; the court held a hearing and ultimately denied copying access.
- The court granted leave to intervene but denied the requested access to copy the video deposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Jobs deposition is a judicial record | Media Intervenors contends it is a judicial record warranting copying. | Apple argues it is not a judicial record since it was not admitted as an exhibit and treated as live testimony. | Jobs deposition is not a judicial record; copying not authorized. |
| Public access vs. potential improper use of the video | Public has a strong presumption of access to judicial records and copying rights. | Copying could enable improper use; privacy and fair-trial concerns exist; limited public access already provided. | Public access interest is marginal here; no authority supports copying; balancing weighs against copying. |
| Whether extending copying rights aligns with Ninth Circuit authority | Authorities permit copying in some contexts; extend beyond trial use. | No controlling Ninth Circuit authority supports copying the deposition in this context. | Court declines to extend copying rights beyond what was already granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Valley Broad. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Nevada, 798 F.2d 1289 (9th Cir. 1986) (presumption of public access to judicial records and understanding the judicial process)
- Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (public access balancing duty of courts)
- United States v. McDougal, 103 F.3d 651 (8th Cir. 1996) (video deposition not necessarily a judicial record; marginal public interest for copy)
- United States v. Berger, 990 F. Supp. 1054 (C.D. Ill. 1998) (deposition videotape tied to unusual scheduling circumstances; distinguishable)
- United States v. Mouzin, 559 F. Supp. 463 (C.D. Cal. 1983) (exhibits and non-testimonial recordings; access considerations in context)
- United States v. Criden, 648 F.2d 814 (3d Cir. 1981) (recordings related to evidence and trial procedures)
- Application of CBS, Inc., 828 F.2d 958 (2d Cir. 1987) (video/audio tapes; access related to deposition/evidence)
- Graham v. United States, 257 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2001) (tapes of conversations; access in court proceedings)
- Application of CBS, Inc., 540 F. Supp. 769 (N.D. Ill. 1982) (recordings of conversations and evidentiary issues)