Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.
Filing
935
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO SEAL by Judge William Alsup [denying #844 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part #849 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting #866 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part #870 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal]. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
No. C 10-03561 WHA
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
Defendant.
/
15
16
17
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART
MOTIONS TO SEAL
GOOGLE INC.,
Both parties move to seal documents submitted in support of their briefs related to the
expert report of Dr. James Kearl (Dkt. Nos. 844, 849, 866, 870).
18
Google’s motion (Dkt. No. 844) requests to seal the redacted sections of its motion to
19
strike portions of Dr. James Kearl’s expert report and Exhibit A to the Declaration of Daniel
20
Purcell in support of that motion. Because no supporting declaration has been filed by either
21
party, the request is DENIED.
22
Oracle’s motion (Dkt. No. 849) requests to seal portions of its motion to exclude
23
portions of the rule 706 expert report of Dr. James Kearl and portions of Exhibits to the
24
Dearborn Declaration in support thereof. Both parties submit supporting declarations (Dkt.
25
Nos. 849-1, 886).
26
Portions of Oracle America, Inc.’s motion to exclude portions of the rule 706 expert
27
report of Dr. James Kearl identified by both parties contain sensitive, non-public information
28
that would be harmful to Oracle and Google, respectively, if made public. These materials
1
contain highly sensitive financial information, including costs, revenues, and profits.
2
Also included in these materials is discussion of a confidential license between Sun and Danger,
3
Inc., which is covered by a non-disclosure agreement. The materials also contain discussion
4
of an assessment of the relative value of Oracle’s patents and internal projections and an
5
assessment of Oracle’s plans to enter the smartphone market. The parties have appropriately
6
limited the amount of material to be filed under seal by specifying the portions of the motion
7
and exhibits thereto which contain confidential information. Accordingly, Oracle’s motion to
8
seal: (1) the identified portions of Oracle America, Inc.’s motion to exclude portions of the rule
9
706 expert report of Dr. James Kearl; (2) the identified portions of Exhibits B and D–F to the
Dearborn Declaration; and (3) the entirety of Exhibit C to the Dearborn Declaration is
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
GRANTED. The remainder of the request is DENIED for lack of a supporting declaration.
12
For Google’s motion filed on April 6 (Dkt. No. 866), the request to seal redacted portions
13
of Google’s opposition to Oracle’s motion to strike portions of Dr. James Kearl’s expert report
14
and Exhibit A to the Declaration of David Zimmer in support thereof is GRANTED. As stated
15
in Google’s supporting declaration (Dkt. No. 867), these documents contain sensitive,
16
non-public financial data including costs, revenues, and profits as well as projections thereof.
17
The documents also contain non-public information about Google’s financial management
18
and financial data storage. Public disclosure of this confidential information would cause harm
19
to Google and place it at a competitive disadvantage.
20
Oracle’s motion filed on April 6 (Dkt. No. 870) requests to seal portions of its opposition
21
to Google’s motion to strike portions of Dr. James Kearl’s expert report and Exhibits to the
22
Dearborn Declaration in support thereof. Both parties submit supporting declarations (Dkt. Nos.
23
870-1, 916). The identified documents contain sensitive, non-public information about Sun’s
24
licensing policies, pricing, and negotiation strategies. They also disclose certain of Google’s
25
sensitive, non-public financial data such as costs, revenues, and profits associated with Android
26
as well as projections thereof. The documents also contain details of a confidential license
27
between Sun and Danger, Inc., which is covered by a non-disclosure agreement. Finally, the
28
materials contain personal phone numbers of Google employees. Public disclosure of this
2
1
confidential information would cause harm to both parties, and place them at a competitive
2
disadvantage. Accordingly, Oracle’s motion as to: (1) the identified portions of its opposition
3
to Google’s motion to strike portions of Dr. James Kearl’s expert report; (2) the entirety
4
of Exhibit C to the Dearborn Declaration; and (3) the identified portions of Exhibit H to
5
the Dearborn Declaration is GRANTED. The remainder of the request is DENIED for lack of
6
a supporting declaration.
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
Dated: April 17, 2012.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?