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