3:22-cv-07668•Hughes et al v. Apple, Inc.
Full text
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 United States District Court Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LAUREN HUGHES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. APPLE, INC., Defendant. Case No. 22-cv-07668-VC (TSH) ORDER RE MOTION TO SEAL Re: Dkt. No. 179 The sealing motion at ECF No. 179 is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted as to Exhibits A, B, C, D and E. But it’s denied as to the joint discovery letter brief because the redactions are overbroad. Much of the letter brief is just legal argument and does not merit sealing. This denial is without prejudice to Plaintiffs proposing narrowly tailored redactions within five days. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 21, 2025 THOMAS S. HIXSON United States Magistrate Judge Case 3:22-cv-07668-VC Document 184 Filed 10/21/25 Page 1 of 1
Wondering how this text applies to your situation?
Free consultation, no commitment
Describe your situation. Our team will contact you by email about your consultation.
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.