In re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation

Filing 509

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting in part and denying in part (307) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part (335) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part (346) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part (394) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part (271) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part (283) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in case 5:11-cv-02509-LHK (lhklc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2013)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 8 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 12 IN RE: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION 13 14 15 16 THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: 17 ALL ACTIONS 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO SEAL 19 Before the Court are numerous administrative motions to seal related to Plaintiffs’ Motion 20 for Class Certification and the March 1, 2013 Joint Discovery Status Report. See ECF Nos. 271, 21 283, 307, 335, 346, and 394 (“Sealing Motions”). For the reasons stated herein, the Court 22 GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the parties’ Sealing Motions. 23 I. Legal Standard 24 Historically, courts have recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public records and 25 documents, including judicial records.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 26 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in 27 28 favor of access’ is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1 Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL 1 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th 2 Cir. 2003)). 3 In order to overcome this strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must 4 articulate “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general 5 history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. at 1178-79 (internal quotation 6 marks and citations omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ . . . exist when such ‘court files 7 might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private 8 spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 9 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). “The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, 11 compel the court to seal its records.” Id. (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). § 12 However, the Ninth Circuit has “carved out an exception to the presumption of access to 13 judicial records . . . [that is] expressly limited to judicial records filed under seal when attached to a 14 non-dispositive motion.” In re Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litigation, 686 15 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) 16 (emphasis in original); see also Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) 17 (applying a “good cause” standard to all non-dispositive motions because such motions “are often 18 unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action”) (internal quotation marks 19 and citation omitted). Pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a trial court 20 has broad discretion to permit sealing of court documents for, inter alia, the protection of “a trade 21 secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 22 26(c)(1)(G). The Ninth Circuit has adopted the definition of “trade secrets” set forth in the 23 Restatement of Torts, holding that “[a] trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or 24 compilation of information which is used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to 25 obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it.” Clark v. Bunker, 453 F.2d 1006, 26 1009 (9th Cir. 1972) (quoting Restatement of Torts § 757, cmt. b). “Generally it relates to the 27 production of goods. . . . It may, however, relate to the sale of goods or to other operations in the 28 2 Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL 1 business. . . .” Id. In addition, the Supreme Court has recognized that sealing may be justified to 2 prevent judicial documents from being used “as sources of business information that might harm a 3 litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. 4 Even under the “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c), however, a party must make a 5 “particularized showing” with respect to any individual document in order to justify sealing the 6 relevant document. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180; San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 7 N. Dist., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by 8 specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.” Beckman Indus., Inc. 9 v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). As Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification is a non-dispositive motion, 1 the Court finds United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 that the parties need only demonstrate “good cause” in order to support their requests to seal. 12 Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678 (applying “good cause” standard to all non-dispositive motions). 13 II. Litigants’ Administrative Motions to Seal 14 A. Renewed Motions to Seal Related to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification 15 On January 15, 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in part numerous administrative 16 motions to seal related to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. See ECF No. 273 (“Jan. 15, 17 2013 Order) (granting in part and denying in part sealing motions, see ECF Nos. 186, 211, 246, 18 252, and 254). For each motion and exhibit to a motion where the Court denied a request to seal 19 without prejudice, the Court afforded leave to file renewed motions to seal. See Jan. 15, 2013 20 Order at 26. In addition, the Court held that “if any portion of the exhibits that the parties wish to 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 The Court recognizes that there may be circumstances in which a motion for class certification is case dispositive. As the Eleventh Circuit observed in Prado v. Bush, 221 F.3d 1266, (11th Cir. 2000), a motion for class certification might be dispositive if “a denial of class status means that the stakes are too low for the named plaintiffs to continue the matter.” Id. at 1274. Nevertheless, the Court applies a “good cause” standard here in accordance with the vast majority of other courts within this circuit. See, e.g., In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name and Likeness Licensing Litigation, No. 09-01967, 2012 WL 5395039 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2012); Vietnam Veterans of America v. C.I.A., No. 09-0037, 2012 WL 1094360, *1-2 (N.D. Cal. March 29, 2012); Buchanan v. Homeservices Lending LLC, No. 11-0922, 2012 WL 5505775, *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2012); Davis v. Social Service Coordinators, Inc., No. 10-02372, 2012 WL 2376217 (E.D. Cal. June 22, 2012); Rich v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. 06-03361, 2009 WL 2168688 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 20, 2009). 3 Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL 1 file under seal becomes part of the public record, such as during the hearing on class certification, 2 the parties must file that portion publicly within seven days of public disclosure.” Id. 3 4 1. Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Seal, ECF No. 283 Accordingly, Defendants now submit to the Court their renewed motion to seal documents 5 related to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. See ECF No. 283 (“Defendants’ Renewed 6 Motion to Seal”). Specifically, Defendants request that the Court grant their request to maintain 7 under seal portions of: 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 (1) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, see ECF No. 187; (2) Exhibit 14 to the Ann B. Shaver Declaration in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, see ECF No. 188; (3) Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification and Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Strike the Report of Dr. Edward E. Leamer (“Plaintiffs’ Reply”), see ECF No. 247; and (4) Exhibits 4, 26, 27, and 29 to the Declaration of Dean M. Harvey in Support of Plaintiffs’ Reply, see ECF No. 248. In support of the renewed motion to seal, Defendants filed the following declarations: 13 14 15 (1) (2) (3) (4) Declaration of Donna Morris (Adobe), see ECF No. 284; Declaration of Lisa K. Borgeson (Intuit), see ECF No. 285; Declaration of Tina M. Evangelista (Intel), see ECF No. 287; and Declaration of Frank Wagner (Google), see ECF No. 288. 16 Defendants maintain that all of these documents contain confidential and commercially 17 sensitive information about compensation and recruiting practices, strategies, and policies, and 18 person identifying information of employees or candidates. Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Seal 19 at 4. Defendants designated the foregoing information “Confidential” or “Attorney’s Eyes Only” 20 under the Protective Order, and have otherwise kept the sealed information confidential. Id. 21 Defendants contend that the public disclosure of the information would cause Defendants Adobe, 22 Intel, Intuit, and Google harm by giving third parties insights into confidential and sensitive aspects 23 of each of the Defendants’ strategies, competitive positions, and business operations, allowing 24 these third parties to potentially gain an unfair advantage in dealings with and against each of the 25 Defendants. Id. The declarations filed by representatives from each Defendant also explain why 26 each individual Defendant seeks to maintain the confidentiality of specific information contained in 27 particular exhibits and portions of the motion under seal, as well as the harm that would flow to the 28 4 Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL 1 company from public disclosure. See, e.g., Morris Decl., ECF No. 284; Borgeson Decl., ECF No. 2 285; Evangelista Decl., ECF No. 287; Wagner Decl., ECF No. 288. 3 In light of Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Seal and corresponding declarations, the Court 4 makes the following rulings: 5 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (ECF No. 187) Pages/Lines Ruling to be sealed Page 17, lines DENIED. 13-16 Declaration of Ann B. Shaver in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (ECF No. 188) Exhibits Ruling Exhibit 14 DENIED as to the redacted portions on pages bearing Bates numbers: (1) ADOBE_002775 (2) ADOBE_002777 (3) ADOBE_002778 (4) ADOBE_002786 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 GRANTED as to all other redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Morris Decl., ¶ 4, ECF No. 284. Plaintiffs’ Reply (ECF No. 247) Pages/Lines Ruling to be sealed Page 19, lines GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Borgeson 1-5 Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 285. Declaration of Dean Harvey in Support of Plaintiffs’ Reply (ECF No. 248) Exhibits Ruling Exhibit 4 DENIED as to the redacted portions referring to the total number of Google’s staffing professionals. This had already been discussed at a previous court hearing. See Tr. of August 8, 2013 Class Cert. Hr’g (“Tr.”) at 36:2; 68:4. 19 20 Exhibit 26 21 22 Exhibit 27 23 Exhibit 29 24 25 GRANTED as to the number of Google staffing professionals dedicated to sourcing. See Wagner Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 288. DENIED as to Step 14 – Internal Equity on Bates number 76579DOC005963. GRANTED as to all other redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Evangelista Decl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 287. GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Evangelista Decl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 287. DENIED as to page 17, “Access and Calibrate Across Organization,” and page 18, “How Do I Think About Retention?’” GRANTED as to all other redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Seal, ECF No. 283. 26 27 28 5 Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL 1 2 2. Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Seal Opposition, ECF No. 307 In addition, Defendants move to renew their requests to seal portions of documents related 3 to their Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. See ECF No. 307 (“Renewed 4 Motion to Seal Opposition”). Specifically, Defendants request to seal portions of the following 5 documents: (1) Exhibits 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, and 27 to the Declaration of Christina Brown in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, see ECF No. 215; and (2) Defendants’ Notice of Motion and Motion to Strike the Report of Dr. Edward E. Leamer, see ECF No. 210. 6 7 8 In support of the renewed motion to seal, Defendants filed or referred to the following 9 declarations: United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Declaration of Frank Busch (Intel), see ECF No. 220; Declaration of Frank Wagner (Google), see ECF No. 221; Declaration of Donna Morris (Adobe), see ECF No. 284; Declaration of Lisa K. Borgeson (Intuit), see ECF No. 285; Declaration of Justina K. Sessions (Lucasfilm), see ECF No. 303; Declaration of Anne M. Selin (Google), see ECF No. 305; and Declaration of Christina Brown (Apple), see ECF No. 306. Defendants maintain that all of these documents also contain confidential and commercially 15 sensitive information about compensation and recruiting practices, strategies, and policies, and 16 identifying information of employees or candidates. Renewed Motion to Seal Opposition at 5. 17 Defendants designated the foregoing information “Confidential” or “Attorney’s Eyes Only” under 18 the Protective Order, and have otherwise kept the sealed information confidential. Defendants 19 contend that the public disclosure of the information would cause Defendants Adobe, Apple, Intel, 20 Intuit, Google, and Lucasfilm harm by giving third parties insights into confidential and sensitive 21 aspects of each of the Defendants’ strategies, competitive positions, and business operations, 22 allowing these third parties to potentially gain an unfair advantage in dealings with and against 23 each of the Defendants. Id. The declarations filed by representatives from each Defendant also 24 explain why each individual Defendant seeks to maintain the confidentiality of specific information 25 contained in particular exhibits and portions of the motion under seal, as well as the harm that 26 would flow to the company from public disclosure. See, e.g., Busch Decl., ECF No. 220; Wagner 27 28 6 Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL 1 Decl., ECF No. 221; Morris Decl., ECF No. 284; Borgeson Decl., ECF No. 285; Sessions Decl., 2 ECF No. 303; Selin Decl., ECF No. 305; and Brown Decl., ECF No. 306. 3 In light of Defendants’ motion and corresponding declarations, the Court makes the 4 following rulings as to Defendants’ renewed motion to seal, ECF No. 307: 5 Declaration of Christina Brown in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (ECF No. 215) Exhibits Ruling Donna Morris Declaration Exhibit 14 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Morris Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, ECF No. 284. 6 7 8 Exhibit 1 DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants in pages 7 and 13. GRANTED as to all other redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Morris Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, ECF No. 284. 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 Exhibit 2 DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants in pages 3, 5 and 6. GRANTED as to all other redacted portions identified by Defendants in Ex. 2. See Morris Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, ECF No. 284. 12 13 Exhibit 3 DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants in page 3. GRANTED as to all other redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Morris Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, ECF No. 284. 14 15 16 Exhibit 4 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Morris Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, ECF No. 284. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Exhibit 15 Exhibit 16 Exhibit 5 DENIED as to redacted portions identified by Defendants on pages bearing Bates numbers: (1) ADOBE_009300 (2) ADOBE_009302 (3) ADOBE_009305 (4) ADOBE_009306 (5) ADOBE_009307 GRANTED as to all other redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Morris Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, ECF No. 284. GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Morris Decl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 284. Steven Burmeister Declaration GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 306. Exhibit B GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 306. 7 Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL 1 2 3 Exhibit 19 4 Exhibit A DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants on page 10. GRANTED as to all other redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Borgeson Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 285. 5 6 7 Exhibit B DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants within the following slides titled: (1) “Opening and Welcome” (2) “Performance Discussion” (3) “Feedback for a Specific Situation” (4) “Additional Tips for Giving Feedback” (5) “Development Discussion” (6) “Close the Conversation” (7) “Tips on Delivering the Pay/Performance Message” (8) “Performance and Pay Discussions for Impacted Employees” (9) “Tips for Discussions with Impacted Employees” (10) “Determining the IPI pool: Guiding Principles” GRANTED as to all other redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Borgeson Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 285. 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 Exhibit C Powerpoint Slides DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants within the following slides titled: (1) “Inputs to Performance Assessment and Development” (slide bears no page number), and (2) “Determining the BU/FG IPI Pool: Guiding Principles,” page 20; GRANTED as to all other redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Borgeson Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 285. 16 17 18 19 20 Same Powerpoint Slides But With Annotated Comments DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants within the following slides titled: (1) “Inputs to Performance Assessment and Development” (slide bears no page number). However, the Court GRANTS the renewed motion to seal as to the annotations below this powerpoint slide; (2) “Determining the BU/FG IPI Pool: Guiding Principles” with annotations on page 20; GRANTED as to all other redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Borgeson Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 285. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Exhibit C GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants in Ex. C. See Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 306. Mason Stubblefield Declaration GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Borgeson Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 285. Exhibit 20 Exhibit D GRANTED as to all other redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Borgeson Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 285. GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants in the Chris Galy Declaration. See Borgeson Decl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 285. 8 Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL 1 Exhibit 21 2 Exhibit A DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants on page bearing Bates number: GOOG-HIGH TECH-00255218.000003. GRANTED as to all other redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 305. 3 4 5 Exhibit B GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 305. 6 7 8 Exhibit 22 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 9 Exhibit 25 11 12 13 14 15 Exhibit 26 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Frank Wagner Declaration DENIED as to page 1, lines 11-14. GRANTED as to all other redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 305. Exhibit 27 . Exhibit C GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 305. GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants in the Michelle Maupin Declaration, Ex. B, and Ex. C. See Sessions Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 303. DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants on pages bearing Bates numbers: (1) GOOG-HIGH TECH-00038367 (2) GOOG-HIGH TECH-00038368 (3) GOOG-HIGH TECH-00038372 (4) GOOG-HIGH TECH-00038382 (5) GOOG-HIGH TECH-00038386 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 305. DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants on pages bearing Bates numbers: (1) 76597DOC000068 (2) 76597DOC000068_000002 (3) 76597DOC000068_000003 (4) 76597DOC000068_000004 (5) 76597DOC000068_000006 (6) 76597DOC000068_000007 (7) 76597DOC000068_000008 (8) 76597DOC000068_000009 (9) 76597DOC000068_000011 GRANTED as to all other redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Busch Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 220. DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants on pages bearing Bates numbers: (1) 40012DOC000638 (2) 40012DOC000639 (3) 40012DOC000640 (4) 40012DOC000642 (5) 40012DOC000645 (6) 40012DOC000654 (7) 40012DOC000655 (8) 40012DOC000658 (9) 40012DOC000663 (10) 40012DOC000664 9 Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 GRANTED as to all other redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Busch Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 220. Defendants’ Motion to Strike the Report of Dr. Edward E. Leamer (ECF No. 210) Pages/Lines Ruling Page 19, lines GRANTED. See Wagner Decl., ECF No. 221; See Selin Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 305. 13-17 Footnote 16 DENIED. See Wagner Decl., ECF No. 221; See Selin Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 305. Figure on Page GRANTED. See Wagner Decl., ECF No. 221; See Selin Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 305. 20 3. 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 40012DOC000670 40012DOC000671 40012DOC000675 40012DOC000676 40012DOC000677 Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Seal Expert Reports, ECF No. 394 Further, in its April 8, 2013 Case Management Order, ECF No. 388, the Court directed the parties to file renewed motions to seal the expert reports of Dr. Leamer and Dr. Murphy consistent with the good cause standard for sealing as set forth in the Court’s Jan. 15, 2013 Sealing Order. Accordingly, Defendants jointly move to renew their requests to seal portions of the following documents, ECF No. 394 (“Renewed Motion to Seal Expert Reports”): 19 Expert Report of Edward E. Leamer, ECF No. 190; Expert Report of Professor Kevin M. Murphy, ECF No. 230; Reply Expert Report of Edward E. Leamer, ECF No. 249; Defendants’ Joint Administrative Motion for Leave to Supplement the Record, ECF No. 263, and Supplemental Declaration of Kevin Murphy, ECF No. 263-3; and (5) Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Joint Administrative Motion for Leave to Supplement the Record, ECF No. 270, and Declaration of Dr. Leamer, ECF No. 270-1. 20 In addition, Defendants filed corresponding declarations in support of the Renewed Motion 15 16 17 18 21 22 23 24 25 (1) (2) (3) (4) to Seal Expert Reports: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Declaration of Frank Busch (Intel), ECF No. 395; Declaration of Anne M. Selin (Google), ECF No. 396; Declaration of Catherine T. Zeng (Intuit), ECF No. 397; Declaration of Christina Brown (Apple), ECF No. 398; Declaration of Lin W. Kahn (Adobe), ECF No. 399; Declaration of James M. Kennedy (Pixar), ECF No. 400; and Declaration of Justina Sessions (Lucasfilm), ECF No. 401. 26 27 28 As with their other motions, Defendants maintain that all of these documents also contain confidential and commercially sensitive information about compensation and recruiting practices, 10 Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL 1 strategies, and policies, and identifying information of employees or candidates. Renewed Motion 2 to Seal Expert Reports at 3. Defendants designated the foregoing information “Confidential” or 3 “Attorney’s Eyes Only” under the Protective Order, and have otherwise kept the sealed information 4 confidential. Id. Defendants contend that the public disclosure of the information would cause 5 Defendants harm by giving third parties insights into confidential and sensitive aspects of each of 6 the Defendants’ strategies, competitive positions, and business operations, allowing these third 7 parties to potentially gain an unfair advantage in dealings with and against each of the Defendants. 8 Id. 9 In light of Defendants’ motion and corresponding declarations, the Court makes the United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 following rulings as to Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Seal, ECF No. 394: 11 Expert Report of Edward E. Leamer (ECF No. 190) Paragraphs Ruling Paragraph 59 DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. Paragraph 99 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398. Paragraph 107 DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. Google’s firm-wide increase in compensation of 10% and a $1,000 bonus to all employees is public information. Paragraph 108 DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. Paragraph 109 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. Paragraph 111 DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. The Court previously erroneously sealed this information. Paragraph 115 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. Paragraph 116 DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. The Court previously erroneously sealed this information. Paragraph 117 DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. The Court previously erroneously sealed this information. Paragraph 119 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. Paragraph 123 DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395. Paragraph 133 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398. Figures Ruling Figure 3 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kennedy Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 400; Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395; Sessions Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 401. GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kennedy Figure 4 Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 400; Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 No. 396; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395; Sessions Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 401. GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398. Figure 10 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395. Figure 15 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398. Figure 16 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. Figure 17 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398. Footnotes Ruling Footnote 65 DENIED as to the number of recruiters. GRANTED as to the rate of hires. See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. Footnote 101 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. Footnote 103 DENIED. See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. Footnote 112 DENIED. See Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395. Footnote 127 DENIED. See Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395. Footnote 129 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. Footnote 135 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. Footnote 138 DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. Footnote 139 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. Footnote 155 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. Footnote 160 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395. Footnote 164 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398. Expert Report of Professor Kevin M. Murphy (ECF No. 230) Paragraphs Ruling Paragraph 20 GRANTED as to the first redacted sentence. DENIED as to the second redacted sentence. See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. Paragraph 35 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. Paragraph 43 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. Paragraphs 45 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. Paragraphs 46 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. Paragraph 76 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398 Paragraphs 78 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. Paragraphs 79 DENIED. See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. Paragraph 95 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. Figure 9 12 Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL 1 Paragraph 146 2 Footnotes Footnote 20 3 Footnote 24 4 5 Footnote 92 6 Footnote 104 Footnote 107 7 Footnote 114 8 Footnote 186 9 Exhibits Exhibit 1A United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 Exhibit 1B Exhibit 2A 12 13 Exhibit 2B 14 15 Exhibit 3 16 17 18 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 19 20 21 Exhibit 7A Exhibit 7B 22 23 24 Exhibit 8A Exhibit 8B 25 26 Exhibit 9A 27 Exhibit 9B 28 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. Ruling GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395. GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398. DENIED. See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. ¶ 4,ECF No. 396. GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. DENIED. See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. See Selin Decl. See Selin Decl. See Selin Decl. See Brown See Selin Decl. See Selin Decl. Ruling GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395. GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395. GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kennedy Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 400; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395; Sessions Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 401. GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kennedy Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 400; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395; Sessions Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 401. GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kennedy Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 400; Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Kahn Decl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 399; Zeng Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 397; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395. GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kennedy Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 400; Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395; Sessions Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 401. GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395. GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395. GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395. GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kennedy Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 400; Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395; Sessions Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 401. GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kennedy Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 400; Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395; Sessions Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 401. GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398. GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. 13 Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL 1 Exhibit 10 2 Exhibit 11A 3 Exhibit 11B 4 Exhibit 15B 5 Exhibit 19 6 7 Appendices Appendix 1A 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Appendix 1B Appendix 1C 11 12 13 Appendix 1D Appendix 2A 14 15 16 Appendix 2B Appendix 2C 17 18 19 Appendix 2D Appendix 3A 20 21 Appendix 3B 22 Appendix 4A 23 24 Appendix 4B 25 26 Appendix 4C 27 28 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kennedy Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 400; Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395; Sessions Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 401. GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398. GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kennedy Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 400; Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Sessions Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 401. Ruling GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kahn Decl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 399; Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Zeng Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 397; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395. GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kahn Decl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 399; Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Zeng Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 397; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Busch Decl., ECF No. 395. GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kahn Decl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 399; Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Zeng Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 397; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395. GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kahn Decl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 399; Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Zeng Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 397; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395. GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kahn Decl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 399; See Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; See Zeng Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 397; See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; See Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kahn Decl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 399; Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Zeng Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 397; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395. GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kahn Decl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 399; Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Zeng Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 397; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395. GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kahn Decl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 399; Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Zeng Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 397; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395. GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kennedy Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 400; Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Sessions Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 401. GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kennedy Decl. ¶ 4; Brown Decl., ECF No. 398; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Sessions Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 401. GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kennedy Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 400; Kahn Decl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 399; Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Zeng Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 397; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Sessions Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 401. GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kennedy Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 400; See Kahn Decl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 399; Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Zeng Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 397; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Sessions Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 401. GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kennedy Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 400; Kahn Decl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 399; Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Zeng Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 397; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Sessions 14 Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 401. GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kennedy Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 400; Kahn Decl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 399; Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Zeng Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 397; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Sessions Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 401. Appendix 5A GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kahn Decl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 399. Appendix 5B GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395. Appendix 5C GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Zeng Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 397. Appendix 5D GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Sessions Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 401. Appendix 5E GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kennedy Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 400. Appendix 6A GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kahn Decl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 399. Appendix 6B GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395. Appendix 6C GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Zeng Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 397. Appendix 6D GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Sessions Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 401. Appendix 6E GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kennedy Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 400. Appendix 7B GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395. Reply Expert Report of Edward E. Leamer (ECF No. 249) Title Ruling Title III(C) on DENIED as to the redacted portion identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶ pages i and 23 4, ECF No. 396. Paragraphs Ruling Paragraph 7 DENIED as to the redacted portion identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. Paragraph 51 DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. Paragraph 52 DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. Paragraph 53 GRANTED as to the number and percentage of Google employees hired by a competitor. DENIED as to all other redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. Paragraph 54 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. Paragraph 62 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395. Paragraph 63 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395 Paragraph 64 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398. Figures Ruling Figure 1 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395. Appendix 4D 15 Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Figure 6 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398. GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. Figure 7 Footnotes Footnote 51 Ruling GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395. Footnote 67 DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. Footnote 69 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396. Defendants’ Joint Administrative Motion for Leave to Supplement the Record (ECF No. 263) Pages/Lines Ruling Page 2, lines 1- GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Busch 8 Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 265. Supplemental Declaration of Kevin Murphy (ECF No. 263-3) Pages/Lines Ruling and Exhibits Page 2, lines 9- GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown 15 Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 266; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 265. Exhibit A GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 266; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 265. Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Joint Administrative Motion for Leave to Supplement the Record (ECF No. 270) Pages/Lines Ruling Page 5, lines 2- GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown 11 Decl., ECF No. 398; Busch Decl., ECF No. 395. Declaration of Dr. Leamer in Opposition to Defendants’ Administrative Motion (ECF No. 270-1) Exhibits Ruling Exhibit A GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Busch Decl., ECF No. 395. 4. Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to Seal Portions of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Joint Administrative Motion to Supplement the Record and the Declaration of Dr. Edward E. Leamer in Opposition to Defendants’ Administrative Motion, ECF No. 271 On January 14, 2013, Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to seal portions of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Joint Administrative Motion to Supplement the Record, ECF No. 270, and the Declaration of Dr. Edward E. Leamer in Opposition to Defendants’ Administrative Motion, ECF No. 270-1. See ECF No. 271. Pursuant to Local Rules 79-5(d), Plaintiffs moved to seal the information because Defendants designated the information as “Confidential” or “Attorneys-Eyes Only” under the Protective Order. See id. Defendants then filed a joint response in support of Plaintiffs’ administrative motion. See ECF No. 292. Defendants also filed corresponding declarations in support of Plaintiffs’ sealing request. See ECF Nos. 294 and 300. Defendants later 16 Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL 1 withdrew their joint response, ECF No. 292, pursuant to the Court’s order, ECF No. 388. 2 Defendants then filed a renewed motion to seal portions of certain documents, including Plaintiffs’ 3 Opposition to Defendants’ Joint Administration Motion for Leave to Supplement the Record, ECF 4 No. 270, and Declaration of Dr. Leamer, ECF No. 270-1. See ECF No. 394. As stated above, the 5 Court GRANTS the redacted portions identified by Defendants in Plaintiffs’ Opposition to 6 Defendants’ Joint Administrative Motion for Leave to Supplement the Record and Declaration of 7 Dr. Leamer. See supra p. 16. The Court DENIES all of the other redacted portions identified by 8 Plaintiffs because Defendants do not seek to seal such information. See ECF Nos. 271 and 394. 9 Thus, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to Seal, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 ECF No. 271. 11 B. 12 Motions to Seal Exhibit A to the March 1, 2013 Joint Discovery Status Report, ECF Nos. 335 and 346 On March 2, 2013, Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to seal Exhibit A to the March 13 1, 2013 Joint Discovery Status Report, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(d). ECF No. 335. 14 Exhibit A consists of transcript excerpts from the depositions of: (1) Shona Brown on January 30, 15 2013, and (2) Alan Eustace on February 27, 2013. Defendant Google Inc. (“Google”) designated 16 this information “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential-Attorney’s Eyes Only.” See ECF No. 34617 1. 18 On March 8, 2013, Google filed a response in support of Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion 19 to Seal, seeking to seal select portions of Exhibit A to the March 1, 2013 Joint Discovery Status 20 Report. ECF No. 346. Google also filed a declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ motion, Declaration 21 of Eric B. Evans in Support of Defendant Google Inc.’s response in Support of Plaintiffs’ 22 Administrative Motion to Seal Exhibit A to the March 1, 2013 Joint Discovery Status Report. ECF 23 No. 346-1. According to Google, select portions of these transcript excerpts contain highly 24 confidential information, and Google would suffer competitive harm if such excerpts were made 25 public. Id. ¶ 2. Specifically, these excerpts quote from or are related to documents that Google has 26 designated as Highly Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes’ only because those documents contain 27 28 discussions concerning (1) the development and implementation of Google’s recruiting strategies 17 Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL 1 and policies; (2) discussions about competitors’ recruiting strategies and policies; (3) identification 2 of candidates for employment; (4) Google’s competitively sensitive relations with its business 3 partners; or (5) features of Google’s compensation programs. Id. 4 In light of Plaintiffs’ motion, Google’s response in support of Plaintiffs’ motion, and 5 Google’s corresponding declaration, the Court makes the following rulings: 6 10 Exhibit A to the March 1, 2013 Joint Discovery Status Report (ECF No. 336-1) Deposition Ruling Deposition of DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Evans Decl. Shona Brown on ¶ 2, ECF No. 346-1. January 30, 2013 Deposition of GRANTED as to page 161 (bottom center of page), lines 3-5, 9-11, 24-25. Alan Eustace on DENIED as to all other redacted portions identified by Defendants and February 27, Plaintiffs. See Evans Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 346-1; Plaintiffs’ Administrative 2013 Motion to Seal, ECF No. 335. 11 Plaintiffs also sought to seal other information in their administrative motion to seal. See ECF No. 12 335. However, Defendants do not seek to seal such information. See ECF No. 346. The Court, 13 therefore, DENIES all other proposed redactions identified by Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Court 14 GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to Seal, ECF No. 335. 15 III. 7 8 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 9 16 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-IN-PART with 17 prejudice the parties’ Sealing Motions as set forth above. In addition, if any portion of the exhibits 18 that the parties wish to file under seal becomes part of the public record, such as during a court 19 proceeding, the parties must file that portion publicly within seven days of public disclosure. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 Dated: September 30, 2013 ________________________________ LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 18 Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL