Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 2076

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS, Motions terminated: #1995 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Oracle America, Inc., #2014 MOTION for Sanctions and for Civil Contempt filed by Google Inc., #2047 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Affidavit of Christa M. Anderson in Response to ECF 2036 filed by Google Inc., #2011 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Exhibit 4 to Googles Opposition to Oracles Rule 59 Motion filed by Google Inc., #2056 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal DECLARATION OF CHRISTA M. ANDERSON IN RESPONSE TO COURT ORDERS ECF 2052 & 2053 filed by Google Inc., #2025 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal In Support of Oracle's Opposition to Google's Mot. Contempt & Sanctions filed by Oracle America, Inc., #2018 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Oracle America, Inc., #2054 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Oracle America, Inc., #2002 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Oracle America, Inc., #2046 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Oracle America, Inc., #2001 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Oracle America, Inc... Signed by Judge Alsup on 3/30/17. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/30/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE INC.,

ORDER RE
SEALING MOTIONS

Defendant.
/

15
16

No. C 10-03561 WHA

The parties filed dozens of sealing motions. This order resolves those motions without

17

prejudice to whether the same material would be sealable in any further proceedings in this

18

case. The “compelling reasons” standard applies to the bulk of these motions, which relate to

19

materials submitted in connection with motions in limine and post-trial motions, which go to the

20

heart of the merits of the case. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092

21

(9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied sub nom. FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 137 S. Ct. 38

22

(2016). Only “good cause” is necessary for the sealing motion relating to Google’s motion for

23

sanctions and fees (see Dkt. No. 2025).

24

In any future filings, where the parties file a motion supported by materials sought to be

25

filed under seal, they should please file the underlying motion as a separate docket entry from

26

the sealing motion. Many of the sealing motions addressed herein did not follow that

27

procedure, causing confusion in the management of the docket, particularly when cross-

28

referencing docket entries. Similarly, many of the supporting declarations were not identified

1

as such, and failed to identify the motion or motions they supported, or confused the docket

2

entry for the sealing motions in question with some other document.

3

Additionally, the parties’ practice of overdesignating initially then partially withdrawing

4

designations when the opposing party files documents under seal meant most motions required

5

reference to at least two, often three or four separate documents just to discern what excerpts

6

are sought to be sealed. Civil Local Rule 7-11(a) requires motions for administrative relief,

7

such as sealing motions, to be accompanied by a stipulation or a declaration explaining why no

8

stipulation could be obtained. Had our parties met and conferred over possible stipulations for

9

these sealing motions, they might have been able to mitigate the mess they served up.
Sealing Motion
Docket Number

Designating Party’s
Supporting Declaration
Docket Number

Disposition

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

1550

1580

GRANTED to the extent stated in Google’s
supporting declaration. The documents
sought to be filed under seal contain raw
data for a survey, which includes the
personal identifying information of nonparties who completed the survey.

1551

None.

DENIED. The designating party, Google,
filed no supporting declaration.

1553

None.

DENIED. The designating party, Google,
filed no supporting declaration.

1554

1580

DENIED. This motion relates only to the
figures in the brief, not the underlying
reports. There are no compelling reasons
for sealing these figures, which are
cumulative and do not reveal the underlying
data on which they rely.

1556

None.

DENIED. The designating party, Google,
filed no supporting declaration.

1560

1560-1, 1577

25

GRANTED as to the following paragraphs
identified by either side, which are internal
financial figures or the terms of third-party
business negotiations or deals, which, if
revealed, could cause competitive harm.

26

Malackowski Rep. (Jan. 8):

27

•

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

28
2

The data in Figure 3 from 2014 and
2015, and only the overall total from
the total column.

1
2

Sealing Motion
Docket Number

Designating Party’s
Supporting Declaration
Docket Number

Disposition

3

•

The percentage and dollar amount in
¶ 118.

•

The identified portions of
¶¶ 153–58, 191, 249–50, 260 (as to
the 2015 data only), 263 (as to the
2015 data only), 267, 274–276, 282,
286–94 (2014 and 2015 data only,
totals may not be redacted), 316,
including the related figures and
tables.

•

The data from 2014 and 2015 in
Figures 24–28.

•

The data from 2014 and 2015 in
Exhibits, 7, 7.1, 8, and 8.1.

•

The data from 2014 and 2015 in
Exhibits 12, 12.1, 12.2, 12.4, 12.6,
and 12.9.

4
5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

Malackowski Rep. (Feb 29):

15

•

The dollar amounts in ¶ 94, and
footnote 88.

•

The dollar amounts in ¶ 275.

•

The 2014 and 2015 data in Exhibits
7–8.1 and 14.

19

•

Exhibits 14.1 and 14.2.

20

Jaffe Rep. (Feb. 8):

21

•

The identified portions in ¶¶ 21,
235, 244 (2014 and 2015 data only),
249, 255, 267, and 301.

•

The percentages and dollar amounts
in ¶¶ 269 and 272.

•

The identified portions of Figures
30, 39 (2014 and 2015 data only),
43, 48, and Tables 6 and 7.

•

The identified portions of Exhibits
8, 9 (2014 and 2015 data only),
11–16, and 22.

16
17
18

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1
2

Sealing Motion
Docket Number

Designating Party’s
Supporting Declaration
Docket Number

Disposition

3

Kemerer Rep. (Jan. 8):

4

•

5

The identified line-items on pages
216–17.

Ringhofer Dep.

6

•

7

The dollar amounts on page 69.

1563

1580

GRANTED to the extent stated in Google’s
supporting declaration.

1574

None.

DENIED. The designating party, Google,
filed no supporting declaration.

1582

1582-2, 1596.

GRANTED as described in the respective
supporting declarations, except as to
requests withdrawn by Google (Dkt. No.
1637).

1583

1583-1, 1640

GRANTED as described in the respective
supporting declarations, except as to
requests withdrawn by Google (Dkt. No.
1637).

1601

1636

GRANTED as described in Google’s
supporting declarations, except as to
requests withdrawn by Google (Dkt. No.
1637).

1602

1602-2

DENIED. The materials sought to be sealed
are experts’ calculations of multi-year totals
and aggregate ratios and do not reveal any
sealable underlying information.

20

1612

None.

DENIED. The designating party, Google,
filed no supporting declaration.

21

1613

1635

GRANTED only as to the dollar values and
percentages in footnote 9 of Oracle’s
opposition, and the dollar amounts and
percentages in Appendix A.

1614

1635

GRANTED only as to the identified portions
of the Kolotourous deposition.

1619

None.

DENIED. The designating party, Google,
does not seek to seal these materials (see
Dkt. No. 1637)

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

1

Designating Party’s
Supporting Declaration
Docket Number

Disposition

2

Sealing Motion
Docket Number

3

1621

None.

DENIED. This motion relates to materials
designated under the protective order by
both sides. Oracle did not file a supporting
declaration, and Google does not seek to
seal these materials (see Dkt. No. 1637).

1622

None.

DENIED. This motion relates to materials
designated under the protective order by
both sides. Oracle did not file a supporting
declaration, and Google does not seek to
seal these materials (see Dkt. No. 1637).

1623

1623-3

DENIED. The figures sought to be sealed
are an expert’s estimates of total damages
or total costs incurred in hypothetical
situations. There are no compelling reasons
to seal these figures.

1625

None.

DENIED. The designating party, Google,
does not seek to seal these materials (see
Dkt. No. 1637).

1627

None.

DENIED. The designating party, Oracle,
filed no supporting declaration.

1629

1629-2

GRANTED to the extent described in
Oracle’s supporting declaration, which
relates to the terms of confidential thirdparty business deals.

1633

None.

DENIED. The designating party, Oracle,
filed no supporting declaration.

19

1644

None.

DENIED. The designating party, Google,
filed no supporting declaration.

20

1645, 1646

1686

DENIED. The materials sought to be sealed
are an expert’s calculations of mutli-year
totals and aggregated ratios that do not
reveal any sealable underlying information.

1654

None.

DENIED. The designating party, Google,
filed no supporting declaration.

1655

1686

DENIED. The materials sought to be sealed
are an expert’s calculations of multi-year
totals, some of which occur in alternatereality scenarios, and do not reveal any
sealable underlying information.

1656

1686

DENIED. This figure is an expert’s
calculation of a multi-year total that does
not reveal any sealable underlying
information.

4
5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5

1

Designating Party’s
Supporting Declaration
Docket Number

Disposition

2

Sealing Motion
Docket Number

3

1660

1660-5

DENIED. The materials sought to be sealed
are an expert’s calculations of multi-year
totals that do not reveal any sealable
underlying information.

1684

None.

DENIED. The designating party, Google,
filed no supporting declaration.

1705

None.

DENIED. The designating party, Oracle,
filed no supporting declaration.

1727

None.

DENIED. The designating party, Oracle,
filed no supporting declaration.

1766

None.

DENIED. Oracle does not seek to seal this
document (see Dkt. No. 1842).

1796

None.

DENIED. The designating party, Oracle,
filed no supporting declaration.

1958

1985

GRANTED as to the portions of Exhibit A
identified in Google’s supporting
declaration, which reflect Google’s internal
financial data and the terms of confidential
third-party agreements.

4
5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15

DENIED as to the generic description of
Exhibit A in Oracle’s motion.

16
17

1995, 2001, 2002

GRANTED as to the materials identified in
the parties’ supporting declarations, except
as to the portions of pages 6 and 9 of
Oracle’s motion for a new trial identified by
Google. The sealed materials relate to
internal financial matters and third-party
business dealings that could cause the
designating party competitive harm if made
public.

1995-2, 2004

18
19
20
21

The materials in Oracle’s motion that may
not be sealed go to the heart of Oracle’s
argument for a new trial, and Google has
not shown that it would suffer harm if its
discussions about the business and technical
relationship vel non between Android and
Chrome OS is made public (to the extent it
has not already been made public).

22
23
24
25
26

2011

None.

DENIED. Oracle does not seek to seal this
document (see Dkt. No. 2016).

2018

2021

DENIED for the same reasons stated
regarding Dkt. Nos. 1995, 2001, and 2002.

27
28

6

1

Designating Party’s
Supporting Declaration
Docket Number

Disposition

2

Sealing Motion
Docket Number

3

2025

2030

GRANTED to the extent stated in Google’s
supporting declaration.

2046

2051

DENIED for the same reasons stated
regarding Dkt. Nos. 1995, 2001, and 2002.

2047

2047-2

DENIED as to Anderson’s declaration, for
the same reasons stated regarding Dkt. Nos.
1995, 2001, and 2002, but otherwise
GRANTED.

2054

2060

DENIED for the same reasons stated
regarding Dkt. Nos. 1995, 2001, and 2002.

2056

None.

DENIED. Both sides agree the material
sought to be sealed can be made public (See
Dkt. Nos. 2056-1, 2059).

4
5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Any sealing requests not expressly granted above are DENIED, either as unsupported by
a declaration at all, or as lacking compelling reasons for denying the public access to the
materials.
This order further notes that the supporting declarations often identified paragraphs that
contained no highlighted text (indicating materials sought to be sealed), but failed to identify
nearby paragraphs that did include highlighted text. This order did not attempt to correct what
appear to be numerous errors by counsel. Nor did it speculate about the reasons for sealing
information where the supporting declaration offered only a perfunctory statement about a
broad swath of materials and the information itself did not appear sealable on its face.
If either side seeks reconsideration based on supplemental supporting declarations, such
declarations must be filed by APRIL 13 and must identify, with specificity, the compelling
reason for each and every proposed redaction. Merely asserting the fact that information is kept
confidential (especially if the allegedly sealable information has been inextricably mixed, via an
expert’s estimates, with information that does not warrant sealing) and vaguely contending its
disclosure would cause competitive harm is insufficient.

27
28
7

1

The parties shall please file new versions of the documents that were the subject of this

2

order in accordance with this order by APRIL 20. Please file them so that an ordinary mortal

3

reviewing our docket can understand which redacted document belongs where.

4

Google’s motion to remove an incorrectly filed exhibit (Dkt. No. 1579) is GRANTED.

5

Google’s motion for sanctions and for civil contempt (Dkt. No. 2014) is DENIED AS

6
7
8

MOOT,

in light of the parties’ settlement of the issues raised therein (see Dkt. No. 2067).
Additionally, the motion to withdraw appearances filed on behalf of non-party LG

Electronics, Inc., is GRANTED (Dkt. No. 1525).

9
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Dated: March 30, 2017.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8