Filed: Oct. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 26, 2018
Summary: OMNIBUS ORDER RE SEALING REQUESTS [Re: ECF 296, 300, 304, 307, 317, 320] BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . Before the Court are the parties' respective administrative motions to file under seal portions of Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and exhibits, the parties' opposition briefs and exhibits, and the parties' reply briefs and exhibits. ECF 296, 300, 304, 307, 317, 320. For the reasons stated below, Defendant's motions are GRANTED; and Plaintiff's motions are GRANTED IN PART
Summary: OMNIBUS ORDER RE SEALING REQUESTS [Re: ECF 296, 300, 304, 307, 317, 320] BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . Before the Court are the parties' respective administrative motions to file under seal portions of Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and exhibits, the parties' opposition briefs and exhibits, and the parties' reply briefs and exhibits. ECF 296, 300, 304, 307, 317, 320. For the reasons stated below, Defendant's motions are GRANTED; and Plaintiff's motions are GRANTED IN PART ..
More
OMNIBUS ORDER RE SEALING REQUESTS
[Re: ECF 296, 300, 304, 307, 317, 320]
BETH LABSON FREEMAN, District Judge.
Before the Court are the parties' respective administrative motions to file under seal portions of Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and exhibits, the parties' opposition briefs and exhibits, and the parties' reply briefs and exhibits. ECF 296, 300, 304, 307, 317, 320. For the reasons stated below, Defendant's motions are GRANTED; and Plaintiff's motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
"Historically, courts have recognized a `general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.'" Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, "a `strong presumption in favor of access' is the starting point." Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are "more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action" bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with "compelling reasons" that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79.
However, "while protecting the public's interest in access to the courts, we must remain mindful of the parties' right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm their competitive interest." Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Records attached to motions that are "not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of a case" therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 ("[T]he public has less of a need for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action."). Parties moving to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower "good cause" standard of Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This standard requires a "particularized showing," id., that "specific prejudice or harm will result" if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). "Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning" will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). A protective order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court's previous determination that good cause exists to keep the documents sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80, but a blanket protective order that allows the parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether each particular document should remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) ("Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.").
In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is "sealable," or "privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law." "The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d)." Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the submitting party to attach a "proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material" which "lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed," Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an "unredacted version of the document" that indicates "by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted version." Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). "Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable." Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
II. DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed the parties' sealing motions and the declarations of the designating parties submitted in support thereof. The Court finds that the parties have articulated compelling reasons to seal certain portions of the submitted documents. The proposed redactions are generally narrowly tailored. The Court's rulings on the sealing requests are set forth in the tables below.
A. ECF 296 and ECF 300 (Plaintiff's Motion as to Plaintiff's MSJ and Exhibits)
ECF Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning
No.
296-4 Plaintiff's Motion for GRANTED as to The proposed redacted portions
Summary Judgment proposed redacted contain highly confidential
portions submitted by information relating to the
Google, the design and operation of
designating party (ECF Google's ad display architecture
303-1). and infrastructure. Mehta Decl.
¶ 6, ECF 303. Disclosure of
such information would provide
an unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 6.
DENIED as to The remainder is denied because
remainder. Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 6.
300-31 Excerpts from Report of GRANTED as to The proposed redacted portions
Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Kevin proposed redacted contain highly confidential
C. Almeroth portions submitted by information relating to the
Google, the design and operation of
designating party (ECF Google's ad display architecture
303-2). and infrastructure. Mehta Decl.
¶ 7, ECF 303. Disclosure of
such information would provide
an unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 7.
DENIED as to The remainder is denied because
remainder. Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 7.
300-42 Appendix F to the Report of GRANTED as to The proposed redacted portions
Plaintiff's Expert, proposed redacted contain highly confidential
Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth portions submitted by information relating to the
Google, the design and operation of
designating party (ECF Google's ad display architecture
303-3). and infrastructure. Mehta Decl.
¶ 8, ECF 303. Disclosure of
such information would provide
an unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 8.
DENIED as to The remainder is denied because
remainder. Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 8.
300-53 Appendix G to the Report of GRANTED as to The proposed redacted portions
Plaintiff's Expert, proposed redacted contain highly confidential
Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth portions submitted by information relating to the
Google, the design and operation of
designating party (ECF Google's ad display architecture
303-4). and infrastructure. Mehta Decl.
¶ 9, ECF 303. Disclosure of
such information would provide
an unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 9.
DENIED as to The remainder is denied because
remainder. Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 9.
300-64 Excerpts from Rebuttal GRANTED as to The proposed redacted portions
Report of Plaintiff's Expert, proposed redacted contain highly confidential
Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth, portions submitted by information relating to the
Concerning Validity of U.S. Google, the design and operation of
Patent Nos. 6,014,698 and designating party (ECF Google's ad display architecture
6,286,045 303-5). and infrastructure. Mehta Decl.
¶ 10, ECF 303. Disclosure of
such information would provide
an unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 10.
DENIED as to The remainder is denied because
remainder. Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 10.
296-9 Ex. 2 to the Rebuttal Report DENIED. Google, the designating party,
of Plaintiff's Expert, states that it does not seek to
Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth, seal this document. Mehta Decl.
Concerning Validity of U.S. ¶ 11.
Patent Nos. 6,014,698 and
6,286,045
296-10 Excerpts from the Rebuttal GRANTED as to The proposed redacted portions
Expert Report of Michael J. proposed redacted contain highly confidential
Freedman portions submitted by information relating to the
Google, the design and operation of
designating party (ECF Google's ad display architecture
303-6). and infrastructure. Mehta Decl.
¶ 12, ECF 303. Disclosure of
such information would provide
an unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 12.
DENIED as to The remainder is denied because
remainder. Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 12.
296-11 Excerpts from the Deposition GRANTED as to The proposed redacted portions
of Michael Freedman proposed redacted contain highly confidential
portions submitted by information relating to the
Google, the design and operation of
designating party (ECF Google's ad display architecture
303-7). and infrastructure. Mehta Decl.
¶ 13, ECF 303. Disclosure of
such information would provide
an unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 13.
DENIED as to The remainder is denied because
remainder. Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 13.
296-12 Excerpts from the Deposition GRANTED as to The proposed redacted portions
of David Christian proposed redacted contain highly confidential
portions submitted by information relating to the
Google, the design and operation of
designating party (ECF Google's ad display architecture
303-8). and infrastructure. Mehta Decl.
¶ 14, ECF 303. Disclosure of
such information would provide
an unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 14.
DENIED as to The remainder is denied because
remainder. Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 14.
296-13 Excerpts from the Deposition GRANTED as to The proposed redacted portions
of Nathan Lucash proposed redacted contain highly confidential
portions submitted by information relating to the
Google, the design and operation of
designating party (ECF Google's ad display architecture
303-9). and infrastructure. Mehta Decl.
¶ 15, ECF 303. Disclosure of
such information would provide
an unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 15.
DENIED as to The remainder is denied because
remainder. Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 15.
296-14 Excerpts from the Deposition GRANTED as to The proposed redacted portions
of Peter Alexander proposed redacted contain highly confidential
portions submitted by information relating to the
Google, the design and operation of
designating party (ECF Google's ad display architecture
303-10). and infrastructure. Mehta Decl.
¶ 16, ECF 303. Disclosure of
such information would provide
an unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 16.
DENIED as to The remainder is denied because
remainder. Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 16.
296-15 Excerpts from Expert Report GRANTED as to The proposed redacted portions
of Peter Alexander proposed redacted contain highly confidential
portions submitted by information relating to the
Google, the design and operation of
designating party (ECF Google's ad display architecture
303-11). and infrastructure. Mehta Decl.
¶ 17, ECF 303. Disclosure of
such information would provide
an unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 17.
DENIED as to The remainder is denied because
remainder. Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 17.
296-16 Document produced by DENIED. Google, the designating party,
Google bearing Bates states that it does not seek to
numbers seal this document. Mehta Decl.
GOOG_WAH_00109209-GOOG_WAH_00109211 ¶ 18.
296-17 Document produced by GRANTED. The proposed redacted portions
Google bearing Bates contain highly confidential
numbers information relating to the
GOOG_WAH_00188557-GOOG_WAH_00188568 design and operation of
Google's ad display architecture
and infrastructure. Mehta Decl.
¶ 19, ECF 303. Disclosure of
such information would provide
an unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 19.
296-18 Document produced by GRANTED. The proposed redacted portions
Google bearing Bates contain highly confidential
numbers information relating to the
GOOG_WAH_SC_10000720, design and operation of
GOOG_WAH_SC_10000783, Google's ad display architecture
GOOG_WAH_SC_10000789, and infrastructure. Mehta Decl.
and ¶ 20, ECF 303. Disclosure of
GOOG_WAH_SC_10000799 such information would provide
an unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 20.
296-19 Excerpts from the Deposition GRANTED. The proposed redacted portions
of Phillip Lindsay contain highly confidential
information relating to the
design and operation of
Google's ad display architecture
and infrastructure. Mehta Decl.
¶ 21, ECF 303. Disclosure of
such information would provide
an unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 21.
296-20 Document produced by DENIED. Google, the designating party,
Google bearing Bates states that it does not seek to
numbers seal this document. Mehta Decl.
GOOG_WAH_00050818-GOOG_WAH_00050826 ¶ 22.
296-21 Document produced by DENIED. Google, the designating party,
Google bearing Bates states that it does not seek to
numbers seal this document. Mehta Decl.
GOOG_WAH_00052835-GOOG_WAH_00052842 ¶ 23.
296-22 Document produced by DENIED. Google, the designating party,
Google bearing Bates states that it does not seek to
numbers seal this document. Mehta Decl.
GOOG_WAH_00049250-GOOG_WAH_00049257 ¶ 24.
296-23 Document produced by DENIED. Google, the designating party,
Google bearing Bates states that it does not seek to
numbers seal this document. Mehta Decl.
¶ 25.
GOOG_WAH_00049021-GOOG_WAH_00049066
296-24 Document produced by DENIED. Google, the designating party,
Google bearing Bates states that it does not seek to
numbers seal this document. Mehta Decl.
GOOG_WAH_00056617-GOOG_WAH_00056662 ¶ 26.
296-25 Document produced by DENIED. Google, the designating party,
Google bearing Bates states that it does not seek to
numbers seal this document. Mehta Decl.
GOOG_WAH_00050368-GOOG_WAH_00050378 ¶ 27.
296-26 Document produced by DENIED. Google, the designating party,
Google bearing Bates states that it does not seek to
numbers seal this document. Mehta Decl.
GOOG_WAH_00049258-GOOG_WAH_00049265 ¶ 28.
296-27 Document produced by DENIED. Google, the designating party,
Google bearing Bates states that it does not seek to
numbers seal this document. Mehta Decl.
GOOG_WAH_00055251-GOOG_WAH_00055260 ¶ 29.
296-28 Document produced by DENIED. Google, the designating party,
Google bearing Bates states that it does not seek to
numbers seal this document. Mehta Decl.
GOOG_WAH_00050193-GOOG_WAH_00050207 ¶ 30.
296-29 Document produced by DENIED. Google, the designating party,
Google bearing Bates states that it does not seek to
numbers seal this document. Mehta Decl.
GOOG_WAH_00048837-GOOG_WAH_00048854 ¶ 31.
296-30 Excerpts from the Deposition GRANTED as to The proposed redacted portions
Allen Merriman proposed redacted contain highly confidential
portions submitted by information relating to Google's
Google, the source code. Mehta Decl. ¶ 32,
designating party (ECF ECF 303. Disclosure of such
303-12). information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 32.
DENIED as to
remainder. The remainder is denied because
Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 32.
296-31 Excerpts from the Deposition DENIED. Google, the designating party,
of Mehdi Daoudi states that it does not seek to
seal this document. Mehta Decl.
¶ 33.
296-32 Document entitled DENIED. Google, the designating party,
"DoubleClick, Inc., states that it does not seek to
Confidential Business seal this document. Mehta Decl.
Plan" ¶ 34.
296-33 Excerpts from Exhibit E from GRANTED as to The proposed redacted portions
the Expert Report of proposed redacted contain highly confidential
Peter Alexander portions submitted by information relating to Google's
Google, the source code. Mehta Decl. ¶ 35,
designating party (ECF ECF 303. Disclosure of such
303-13). information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 35.
DENIED as to The remainder is denied because
remainder. Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 35.
296-34 Document produced by DENIED. Google, the designating party,
Google bearing Bates states that it does not seek to
numbers seal this document. Mehta Decl.
GOOG_WAH_00070764-GOOG_WAH_00070844 ¶ 36.
296-35 Document produced by DENIED. Google, the designating party,
Google bearing Bates states that it does not seek to
numbers seal this document. Mehta Decl.
GOOG_WAH_00138665-GOOG_WAH_00138666 ¶ 37.
296-36 Excerpts from the Deposition DENIED. Google, the designating party,
of Tom Shields states that it does not seek to
seal this document. Mehta Decl.
¶ 38.
296-37 Exhibit E to Rebuttal Expert DENIED. Google, the designating party,
Report of Michael J. states that it does not seek to
Freedman seal this document. Mehta Decl.
¶ 39.
296-38 Excerpts from the Expert DENIED. Google, the designating party,
Report of Laura B. Stamm states that it does not seek to
seal this document. Mehta Decl.
¶ 40.
296-39 Document produced by DENIED. Google, the designating party,
Google bearing Bates number states that it does not seek to
GOOG_WAH_00075824 seal this document. Mehta Decl.
¶ 41.
B. ECF 304 (Plaintiff's Motion as to Plaintiff's Opposition and Exhibits)
ECF Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning
No.
304-4 Plaintiff's Opposition and GRANTED as to The proposed redacted portions
Cross-Motion to proposed redacted contain highly confidential
Defendant Google LLC's portions submitted by information relating to Google's
Motion for Summary Google, the designating ad display architecture and
Judgment party (ECF 310-1). infrastructure. Mehta Decl. ¶ 6,
ECF 310. Disclosure of such
information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 6.
DENIED as to The remainder is denied because
remainder. Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 6.
304-5 Excerpts from the GRANTED as to The proposed redacted portions
Deposition Transcript of proposed redacted contain highly confidential
Aparna Pappu portions submitted by information relating to Google's
Google, the designating ad display architecture and
party (ECF 310-2). infrastructure. Mehta Decl. ¶ 7,
ECF 310. Disclosure of such
information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 7.
DENIED as to
remainder. The remainder is denied because
Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 7.
304-6 Google Patent License, GRANTED. The proposed redacted portions
Sale and Assignment contain highly confidential
Agreement bearing financial information relating to a
production Bates numbers third-party license agreement.
GOOG_WAH_00134638-GOOG_WAH_00134673 Mehta Decl. ¶ 8, ECF 310.
Disclosure of such information
would provide an unfair business
advantage to competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4,
8.
304-7 Excerpts from the DENIED. Google, the designating party,
Deposition Transcript of states that it does not seek to seal
Tom Shields this document. Mehta Decl. ¶ 9.
304-8 Excerpts from Appendix GRANTED as to The proposed redacted portions
F to the Report of proposed redacted contain highly confidential
Plaintiff's Expert portions submitted by information relating to Google's
Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth Google, the designating ad display architecture and
party (ECF 310-3). infrastructure. Mehta Decl. ¶ 10,
ECF 310. Disclosure of such
information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 10.
DENIED as to The remainder is denied because
remainder. Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 10.
304-9 Excerpts from a document GRANTED. The proposed redacted portions
entitled: "Company contain highly confidential
Disclosure Schedule" financial information relating to a
dated April 13, 2007 and third-party merger agreement.
produced by Google Mehta Decl. ¶ 11, ECF 310.
bearing production Bates Disclosure of such information
numbers would provide an unfair business
GOOG_WAH_00099914, advantage to competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4,
00099934-38, 00099946-75, 11.
00100015, and
00100025-26
304-10 Excerpts from a document GRANTED. The proposed redacted portions
entitled: "Agreement and contain highly confidential
Plan of Merger By and financial information relating to a
Among Google Inc., third-party merger agreement.
Whopper Acquisition Mehta Decl. ¶ 11, ECF 310.
Corp. and Click Holdings Disclosure of such information
Corp. dated April 13, would provide an unfair business
2007 and produced by advantage to competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4,
Google bearing 11.
production Bates numbers
GOOG_WAH_00069938,
00069944, 00069946,
00069955, 00069961-62,
00069965-68, 00069999-00070000
304-11 Excerpts from the GRANTED as to The proposed redacted portions
Deposition Transcript of proposed redacted contain highly confidential
Kevin C. Almeroth portions submitted by information relating to Google's
Google, the designating source code. Mehta Decl. ¶ 12,
party (ECF 310-4). ECF 310. Disclosure of such
information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 12.
DENIED as to The remainder is denied because
remainder. Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 12.
304-12 Excerpts from the Expert DENIED. Google, the designating party,
Report of Peter Alexander states that it does not seek to seal
this document. Mehta Decl. ¶ 13.
304-13 Excerpts from the DENIED. Google, the designating party,
Rebuttal Report of states that it does not seek to seal
Plaintiff's Expert, this document. Mehta Decl. ¶ 14.
Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth
304-14 Excerpts from the DENIED. Google, the designating party,
Deposition Transcript of states that it does not seek to seal
Peter Alexander this document. Mehta Decl. ¶ 15.
304-15 Excerpts from the Report GRANTED as to The proposed redacted portions
of Plaintiff's Expert, proposed redacted contain highly confidential
Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth portions submitted by information relating to Google's
ad display architecture and
Google, the designating infrastructure. Mehta Decl. ¶ 16,
party (ECF 310-5). ECF 310. Disclosure of such
information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 16.
DENIED as to The remainder is denied because
remainder. Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 16.
304-16 Excerpts from the DENIED. Google, the designating party,
Deposition Transcript of states that it does not seek to seal
Dwight Merriman this document. Mehta Decl. ¶ 17.
304-17 Excerpts from the GRANTED as to The proposed redacted portions
Rebuttal Expert Report of proposed redacted contain highly confidential
Michael J. Freedman portions submitted by information relating to Google's
Google, the designating ad display architecture and
party (ECF 310-6). infrastructure. Mehta Decl. ¶ 18,
ECF 310. Disclosure of such
information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 18.
DENIED as to The remainder is denied because
remainder. Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 18.
304-18 Excerpts from the Expert DENIED. Google, the designating party,
Report of Laura B. states that it does not seek to seal
Stamm this document. Mehta Decl. ¶ 19.
304-19 Excerpts from a document DENIED. Google, the designating party,
entitled: How did states that it does not seek to seal
DoubleClick get here? this document. Mehta Decl. ¶ 20.
Produced by Google
bearing production Bates
numbers
GOOG_WAH_00227661,
GOOG_WAH_00227680
304-20 Excerpts from the GRANTED as to The proposed redacted portions
Deposition Transcript of proposed redacted contain highly confidential
Michael Kleber portions submitted by information relating to Google's
Google, the designating ad display architecture and
party (ECF 310-7). infrastructure. Mehta Decl. ¶ 21,
ECF 310. Disclosure of such
information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 21.
DENIED as to The remainder is denied because
remainder. Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 21.
C. ECF 307 (Defendants' Motion as to Defendants' Opposition and Exhibits)
ECF Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning
No.
307-4 Google LLC's GRANTED as to the The proposed redacted portions
Opposition to Plaintiff's highlighted portions. contain highly confidential
Motion for Summary information relating to the design
Judgment and Motion to and operation of Google's ad
Strike display architecture and
infrastructure. Dowd Decl. ¶ 6,
ECF 307-1. Disclosure of such
information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 6.
307-6 Exhibit 3 to the GRANTED as to the The proposed redacted portions
Declaration of Matthias highlighted portions. contain highly confidential
A. Kamber in support of information relating to the design
Defendant Google LLC's and operation of Google's ad
Opposition to Plaintiff's display architecture and
Motion for Summary infrastructure. Dowd Decl. ¶ 7,
Judgment and Motion to ECF 307-1. Disclosure of such
Strike information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 7.
307-8 Exhibit 4 to the GRANTED as to the The proposed redacted portions
Declaration of Matthias highlighted portions. contain highly confidential
A. Kamber in support of information relating to the design
Defendant Google LLC's and operation of Google's ad
Opposition to Plaintiff's display architecture and
Motion for Summary infrastructure. Dowd Decl. ¶ 8,
Judgment and Motion to ECF 307-1. Disclosure of such
Strike information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 8.
307-10 Exhibit 5 to the GRANTED as to the The proposed redacted portions
Declaration of Matthias highlighted portions. contain highly confidential
A. Kamber in support of information relating to the design
Defendant Google LLC's and operation of Google's ad
Opposition to Plaintiff's display architecture and
Motion for Summary infrastructure. Dowd Decl. ¶ 9,
Judgment and Motion to ECF 307-1. Disclosure of such
Strike information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 9.
307-11 Exhibit 6 to the GRANTED as to the The proposed redaction contains
Declaration of Matthias entire document. highly confidential information
A. Kamber in support of relating to the design and
Defendant Google LLC's operation of Google's ad display
Opposition to Plaintiff's architecture and infrastructure.
Motion for Summary Dowd Decl. ¶ 10, ECF 307-1.
Judgment and Motion to Disclosure of such information
Strike would provide an unfair business
advantage to competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4,
10.
307-13 Exhibit 7 to the GRANTED as to the The proposed redacted portions
Declaration of Matthias highlighted portions. contain highly confidential
A. Kamber in support of information relating to the design
Defendant Google LLC's and operation of Google's ad
Opposition to Plaintiff's display architecture and
Motion for Summary infrastructure. Dowd Decl. ¶ 11,
Judgment and Motion to ECF 307-1. Disclosure of such
Strike information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 11.
307-14 Exhibit 8 to the GRANTED as to the The proposed redaction contains
Declaration of Matthias entire document. highly confidential information
A. Kamber in support of relating to the design and
Defendant Google LLC's operation of Google's ad display
Opposition to Plaintiff's architecture and infrastructure.
Motion for Summary Dowd Decl. ¶ 12, ECF 307-1.
Judgment and Motion to Disclosure of such information
Strike would provide an unfair business
advantage to competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4,
12.
307-16 Exhibit 20 to the GRANTED as to the The proposed redacted portions
Declaration of Matthias highlighted portions. contain highly confidential
A. Kamber in support of information relating to the design
Defendant Google LLC's and operation of Google's ad
Opposition to Plaintiff's display architecture and
Motion for Summary infrastructure. Dowd Decl. ¶ 13,
Judgment and Motion to ECF 307-1. Disclosure of such
Strike information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 13.
D. ECF 320 (Plaintiff's Motion as to Plaintiff's Reply and Exhibits)
ECF Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning
No.
320-4 Plaintiff's Reply in GRANTED as to The proposed redacted portions
Support of Motion for proposed redacted contain highly confidential
Summary Judgment and portions submitted by information relating to Google's
to Strike Google, the designating source code. Mehta Decl. ¶ 1, ECF
party (ECF 324-1). 324. Disclosure of such
information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶ 1.
DENIED as to The remainder is denied because
remainder. Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 1.
320-5 Excerpts from the GRANTED as to The proposed redacted portions
Deposition of Peter proposed redacted contain highly confidential
Alexander portions submitted by information relating to Google's
Google, the designating source code. Mehta Decl. ¶ 2, ECF
party (ECF 324-2). 324. Disclosure of such
information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶ 2.
DENIED as to The remainder is denied because
remainder. Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 2.
320-6 Excerpts from the DENIED. Google, the designating party,
Deposition of Mark states that it does not seek to seal
Scheele this document. Mehta Decl. ¶ 3.
320-7 Excerpts from the DENIED. Google, the designating party,
Deposition of Phillip states that it does not seek to seal
Lindsay this document. Mehta Decl. ¶ 4.
320-8 A table regarding GRANTED. The proposed redacted portions
DoubleClick Source contain highly confidential
Code information relating to Google's
source code. Mehta Decl. ¶ 5,
ECF 324. Disclosure of such
information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶ 5.
320-9 Excerpts from the GRANTED as to The proposed redacted portions
Deposition of Dwight proposed redacted contain highly confidential
Merriman portions submitted by information relating to Google's
Google, the designating ad display architecture and
party (ECF 324-3). infrastructure. Mehta Decl. ¶ 6,
ECF 324. Disclosure of such
information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶ 6.
DENIED as to The remainder is denied because
remainder. Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 6.
320-10 Excerpts from Google's GRANTED. The proposed redacted portions
Source Code Production contain highly confidential
information relating to Google's
source code. Mehta Decl. ¶ 7,
ECF 324. Disclosure of such
information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶ 7.
320-11 Excerpts from the DENIED. Google, the designating party,
Rebuttal Expert Report states that it does not seek to seal
of Michael J. Freedman this document. Mehta Decl. ¶ 8.
320-12 Excerpts from Plaintiff's GRANTED as to The proposed redacted portions
First Amended proposed redacted contain highly confidential
Infringement Claim portions submitted by information relating to Google's
Charts for U.S. Patent Google, the designating ad display architecture and
6,286,045 party (ECF 324-4). infrastructure. Mehta Decl. ¶ 9,
ECF 324. Disclosure of such
information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶ 9.
DENIED as to The remainder is denied because
remainder. Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 9.
320-13 Excerpts from the GRANTED as to The proposed redacted portions
Deposition of Alex proposed redacted contain highly confidential
Hioreanu portions submitted by information relating to Google's
Google, the designating ad display architecture and
party (ECF 324-5). infrastructure. Mehta Decl. ¶ 10,
ECF 324. Disclosure of such
information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶ 10.
DENIED as to The remainder is denied because
remainder. Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 10.
E. ECF 317 (Defendants' Motion as to Defendants' Reply and Exhibits)
ECF Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning
No.
317-4 Reply Brief in Support of GRANTED as to the The proposed redacted portions
Google LLC's Motion highlighted portions. contain highly confidential
for Summary Judgment information relating to Google's
strategic licensing practices. Dowd
Decl. ¶ 6, ECF 317-1. Disclosure
of such information would provide
an unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 6.
III. ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motions at ECF 307 and ECF 317 are GRANTED; and Plaintiff's motions at ECF 296, ECF 300, ECF 304, and ECF 320 are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
For any request that has been denied, if the designating party has not already publicly submitted the properly redacted version of the documents, the submitting party must file the unredacted (or lesser redacted) documents into the public record no earlier than 4 days and no later than 10 days from the filing of this order. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
