Looksmart Group, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation

Filing 195

ORDER GRANTING LOOKSMART'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF LOOKSMART'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS STRIKING MICROSOFT'S BELATEDLY DISCLOSED NON-INFRINGEMENT DEFENSES AND EXHIBITS THERETO by Judge Jon S. Tigar. (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/16/2019)

1
2
3
4

Juanita R. Brooks (SBN 75934 / [e-mail])
Jason W. Wolff (SBN 215819 / [e-mail])
Madelyn S. McCormick (SBN 320063 / [e-mail])
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
12390 El Camino Real
San Diego, CA 92130
Tel: [phone] | Fax: [phone]

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Betty H. Chen (SBN 290588 / [e-mail])
Joshua Kain Day (SBN 322372 / [e-mail])
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
500 Arguello Street, Suite 500
Redwood City, California 94063
Tel: [phone] | Fax: [phone]
Proshanto Mukherji (pro hac vice / [e-mail])
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
One Marina Park Drive
Boston, MA 02110
Tel: [phone] / Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
(SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION)

15
16
17

LOOKSMART GROUP, INC.,

18
19
20
21
22

Plaintiffs,
v.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Defendant.

Case No. 3:17-cv-04709-JST
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
LOOKSMART’S ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
PORTIONS OF LOOKSMART’S REPLY
IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS STRIKING MICROSOFT’S
BELATEDLY DISCLOSED NONINFRINGEMENT DEFENSES AND
EXHIBITS THERETO

23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
LOOKSMART’S ADMIN MOTION TO SEAL
Case No. 3:17-cv-04709-JST

1

PROPOSED ORDER

2

Before the Court is Plaintiff LookSmart Group, Inc.’s (“LookSmart” or “Plaintiff’)

3

Administrative Motion to Seal Portions of LookSmart’s Reply in Support of its Motion for

4

Sanctions Striking Microsoft’s Belatedly Disclosed Non-Infringement Defenses and Exhibits

5

Thereto.

6

Microsoft has articulated “compelling reasons” to seal the documents submitted in

7

connection with LookSmart’s reply brief, rebutting the presumption of access to judicial records

8

for each of those documents. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097

9

(9th Cir. 2016). The proposed redactions are narrowly tailored. The Court’s ruling on the sealing

10

requests are set forth in the table below:

11

Document

12

LookSmart’s Reply
ISO its Motion for
Sanctions Striking
Microsoft’s
Belatedly Disclosed
Non-Infringement
Defenses

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Portion(s) to be Sealed
Highlighted portions at:

Evidence Offered in
Support of Sealing
McCormick Decl. ¶ 3

Order
Granted

Page 1, lines 23-25
Page 2, lines 17-18, 26-27
Page 3, lines 1-6, 8-17,
19-20, 24-27
Page 4, lines4-8, 11, 1417, 19, 21, 23-24, 27
Page 5, lines 1-3, 5-7, 12,
17, 26-27

21

Page 6, lines 5-6, 10-11

22

Page 7, lines 4, 27

23

Page 8, lines 25, 27

24
25

Page 9, lines 1, 9-14, 1620, 24, 28

26

Page 10, lines 9, 13-18

27

Page 11, lines 2, 18-21

28
1

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
LOOKSMART’S ADMIN MOTION TO SEAL
Case No. 3:17-cv-04709-JST

1

Page 12, lines 10, 14, 17,
19, 21-22, 27-28

2

Page 13, lines 11-12, 1619, 22

3
4

Page 14, lines 11, 13-14,
16-22, 24-27
Entire document
Entire document

5
6

Exhibit 25
Exhibit 26

7
8

McCormick Decl. ¶ 4
McCormick Decl. ¶¶ 4
and 5

Granted
Granted

IT IS SO ORDERED

9
10

Date: July 16, 2019

__________________________
Hon. Jon S. Tigar
United States District Court Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
LOOKSMART’S ADMIN MOTION TO SEAL
Case No. 3:17-cv-04709-JST