Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 659

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO SEAL re #542 Response ( Non Motion ), filed by Motorola Mobility, Inc., #533 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portion of Trial Brief filed by Google Inc., #556 Notice (Other) filed by Google Inc., #507 Joint Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Oracle America, Inc., #540 Order,, #648 Declaration in Support, filed by Google Inc., #569 Notice (Other) filed by Oracle America, Inc., #537 Amended Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of Oracle's Trial Brief filed by Oracle America, Inc., #532 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Oracle's Trial Brief and Exhibits B, C, D and E to Declaration of Marc David Peters in Support of Oracle's Trial Brief filed by Oracle America, Inc.. Signed by Judge Alsup on December 27, 2011. (whalc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/27/2011)

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
15
16

No. C 10-03561 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART
MOTIONS TO SEAL

GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant.
/

In October 2011, the parties moved to file under seal portions of the trial briefs, motions in

17

limine, and supporting exhibits (Dkt. Nos. 507, 532, 533, 537). On October 16, the Court issued

18

a notice warning counsel “that unless they identify [by the pretrial conference date] a limited

19

amount of exceptionally sensitive information that truly deserves protection, the motions will be

20

denied outright” (Dkt. No. 540). The parties subsequently stated that they did not oppose the

21

public filing of unredacted trial briefs (Dkt. Nos. 556, 569). Motorola Mobility, a third party for

22

discovery, submitted a declaration in support of sealing portions of Oracle’s opposition to

23

Google’s motion in limine No. 5 and portions of Exhibit 5-4 thereto (Dkt. No. 542). Recently,

24

Google submitted a revised declaration in support of sealing Exhibits 15 and 32 of the Purcell

25

declaration in support of Google’s motions in limine (Dkt. Nos. 497–15, 497–32) and documents

26

containing any version of the Lindholm Email (Dkt. No. 648).

27
28

This order finds that portions of Oracle’s opposition to Google’s motion in limine No. 5
and portions of Exhibit 5-4 thereto contained confidential information relating to the operation of

1

Motorola’s handsets. This information dealt with the operation, design, and sensitive business

2

nature of the handsets that were not known outside the company. Disclosure of this material

3

would have caused great and undue harm to Motorola’s business because it would have allowed

4

its competitors access to the technical design of Motorola’s handsets that was not even available

5

by reverse-engineering.

6

This order finds that Exhibit 32 of the Purcell declaration in support of Google’s motions

data and financial projections, such as past revenues associated with Android and projected

9

revenues associated with Android. Google did not make this information available to the public.

10

This data was exceptionally sensitive, and releasing it to the public would have caused great and

11
For the Northern District of California

in limine contained confidential information relating to Google’s sensitive, non-public financial

8

United States District Court

7

undue harm to Google and would have placed it at a competitive disadvantage.

12

This order finds that the vast majority of content in Exhibit 15 of the Purcell declaration in

13

support of Google’s motions in limine was not confidential. Designations of material as

14

“confidential” must be narrowly tailored to include only material for which there is good cause

15

(Dkt. No. 68). The order approving the stipulated protective order warned that “a pattern of

16

over-designation may lead to an order un-designating all or most materials on a wholesale basis”

17

(ibid.). Google declared that Exhibit 15 should be sealed because it contained “sensitive, non-

18

public financial data and financial projections” (Dkt. No. 648 at 3). However, Exhibit 15 was

19

approximately 20 pages long and only a handful of paragraphs contained information related to

20

financial data. Google’s request to seal was not narrowly tailored. Google was already warned

21

that its motion to seal would be denied if it did not narrowly tailor its request. Motion to seal

22

Exhibit 15 is DENIED.

23

For the reasons stated in a prior order denying motion to retain confidentiality designation

24

of the Lindholm Email (Dkt. No. 596), the motion to seal documents containing any version of

25

the Lindholm Email is DENIED.

26

The motions to file under seal are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The clerk

27

shall file under seal the unredacted versions of Oracle’s opposition to Google’s motion in limine

28

No. 5 and portions of Exhibit 5-4 thereto. The redacted versions shall be publicly filed. The
2

1

clerk shall also file under seal Exhibit 32 of the Purcell declaration in support of Google’s

2

motions in limine. As to the remainder of the documents requested be filed under seal, the

3

motions are DENIED.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: December 27, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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
27
28
3