MasterObjects, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

Filing 288

OMNIBUS ORDER RE 161 , 171 , 172 , 177 , 180 , 181 , 190 , 193 , 200 , 202 , 208 , 209 , 214 , 215 , 224 , 229 , 230 , 233 , 237 , 240 , 248 , 249 , 251 , 252 , 261 , 287 MOTIONS TO SEAL AND ASSOCIATED EXHIBITS. SIGNED BY JUDGE ALSUP. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/7/2023)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

MASTEROBJECTS, INC.,
Plaintiff,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
v.

12
13

No. C 21-05428 WHA

META PLATFORMS, INC.,
Defendant.

14

OMNIBUS ORDER RE MOTIONS TO
SEAL

15
16

This omnibus order addresses all remaining motions to seal and associated exhibits (Dkt.

17

Nos. 161, 171, 172, 177, 180, 181, 190, 193, 200, 202, 208, 209, 214, 215, 224, 229, 230, 233,

18

237, 240, 248, 249, 251, 252, 261, 287).
There is a strong public policy in favor of openness in our court system and the public is

19
20

entitled to know to whom we are providing relief (or not). See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of

21

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–80 (9th Cir. 2006). Consequently, access to motions and their

22

attachments that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only

23

upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp.,

24

LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the

25

merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. The compelling

26

reasons standard applies to most judicial records. Evidentiary motions, such as motions in

27

limine and Daubert motions, can be strongly correlative to the merits of a case. Id. at 1098–

28

1100.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

In addition, sealing motions filed in this district must contain a specific statement that

2

explains: (1) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (2) the injury that

3

will result should sealing be denied; and (3) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not

4

sufficient. The material requested to be sealed must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the

5

sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c). For example, “[t]he publication of materials that could

6

result in infringement upon trade secrets has long been considered a factor that would

7

overcome [the] strong presumption” in favor of access and provide compelling reasons for

8

sealing. Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011). Compelling reasons

9

may also warrant sealing for “sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s

10

competitive standing,” especially where the public has minimal interest in the information. See

11

Nixon v. Warner Comms., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978).

12

Finally, “[s]upporting declarations may not rely on vague boilerplate language or

13

nebulous assertions of potential harm but must explain with particularity why any document or

14

portion thereof remains sealable under the applicable legal standard.” Bronson v. Samsung

15

Elecs. Am., Inc., 2019 WL 7810811, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 28, 2019) (citing Civ. L.R. 79-5).

16

“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain

17

documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are

18

sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c).
MASTEROBJECTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS.

19

1.

20

Regarding MasterObjects’ motion for sanctions and related briefing and exhibits, this

21
22
23
24

order rules as follows:
Dkt.
No.
161-3

Document to be
Sealed
MasterObjects’
Motion for
Sanctions

Result

Reasoning

DENIED.

Meta seeks to seal general, technical
information regarding its systems.
Meta’s support for sealing is insufficient
because it is broad and nonspecific.
Given the nature of the information at
issue, Meta does not describe with
particularity how disclosure of this
information would cause it competitive
harm. It merely provides the generic

25
26
27
28
2

assertion that disclosure would
“potentially giv[e] bad actors a roadmap
to identifying sensitive information about
Meta’s technical operation of Typeahead
and related functionalities” (Dkt. No.
168). Meta references source code, of
which there is none cited in this
document. Moreover, Meta’s request
encompasses clearly non-sealable
material. For example, Meta seeks to
seal the number of source code files
produced in discovery (eleven million),
and its Rule 30(b)(6) witness’s testimony
regarding the general computer-science
definition of the word “cache.” The
request is consequently overbroad. Meta
cites no authority indicating why this
high-level information is sealable. See
Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., 2015 WL
5012679, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2015)
(Judge William H. Orrick). This
information goes to the heart of this
litigation, and the public interest
outweighs Meta’s interest in keeping the
material sealed.
See entry for Dkt. No. 161-3.
See entry for Dkt. No. 161-3. Meta seeks
to seal this transcript on the grounds it
contains confidential information
regarding its systems. The Rule 30(b)(6)
witness described the Typeahead system
in generic terms. Meta does not
adequately explain how disclosure of this
high-level information could allow a
third-party to understand its system in
enough detail that it would cause Meta
competitive harm. Moreover, the request
is clearly overbroad, as it includes
testimony regarding general computerscience terms at issue in the litigation,
such as “index” and “cache.”
See entry for Dkt. No. 161-3.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16

161-4
161-5

Hosie Declaration
Transcript of
Deposition of
William Pei (2022)

DENIED.
DENIED.

161-6

Smedley
Declaration
Transcript of
Deposition of
William Pei (2020)

DENIED.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
161-7
26
27

DENIED
WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.

28
3

See entry for Dkt. No. 193-3.

1

161-8

Internal Agenda

GRANTED.

161-9

Internal Technical
Documentation

GRANTED.

161-10

Internal Technical
Documentation
Internal Brainstorm
Document
Transcript of
Deposition of Iosef
Kaver
Transcript of
Deposition of
Philip Pronin
Excerpt of Meta’s
Responses to
MasterObjects’
Requests for
Admission

GRANTED.

Meta seeks to seal internal scheduling
information that carries little public
interest, public disclosure of which may
cause Meta competitive harm.
Meta seeks to seal detailed, confidential
information regarding Meta’s systems,
public disclosure of which may cause
Meta competitive harm.
See entry for Dkt. No. 161-9.

GRANTED.

See entry for Dkt. No. 161-9.

DENIED.

See entry for Dkt. Nos. 161-3 and 161-5.

DENIED.

See entry for Dkt. Nos. 161-3 and 161-5.

DENIED.

Excerpt of
MasterObjects’
Requests for
Admission
Internal Technical
Documentation
Internal Notes
Document
Excerpt of Meta’s
Responses to
MasterObjects’
Requests for
Production

DENIED.

Meta seeks to seal an excerpt from its
responses to MasterObjects’ requests for
admission in its entirety. The request is
overbroad, as it includes the requests for
admission themselves as well as Meta’s
boilerplate objections. Moreover, Meta
does not adequately explain why public
disclosure of certain responses could
result in competitive harm. For example,
Meta seeks to seal straightforward
disavowals that go to the heart of this
litigation, such as “Facebook denies that
Typeahead uses one or more server-side
caches containing previous queries.”
Meta does not sufficiently explain how
disclosure of such disavowals could
cause it competitive harm.
See entry for Dkt. No. 161-14.

GRANTED.

See entry for Dkt. No. 161-9.

GRANTED.

See entry for Dkt. No. 161-9.

DENIED.

Meta seeks to seal an excerpt of its
responses to MasterObjects’ requests for
production in its entirety. The request is
overbroad, as it includes the requests for
production themselves as well as Meta’s

2
3
4
5
6
161-11
7
8
9

161-12

161-13

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

161-14

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

161-15

22
23
24

161-16
161-17

25
26
27
28

161-18

4

171-3

Meta’s Opposition
to MasterObjects’
Motion for
Sanctions

GRANTED IN
PART and
DENIED IN
PART.

171-4

Internal Technical
Documentation
Transcript of
Deposition of
William Pei (2022)
Parties’ Email
Correspondence

GRANTED.

boilerplate objections. Moreover, Meta
does not adequately explain why public
disclosure of certain responses could
result in competitive harm. For example,
Meta seeks to seal broad discovery
statements, such as “The accused
instrumentality identified by
MasterObjects — Typeahead — is not
sold by Facebook. Consequently,
Facebook does not collect, analyze, or
generate revenue information for the
accused instrumentality. Subject to, as
limited by, and without waiving the
foregoing General Objections and
Specific Objections, Facebook will meet
and confer with Plaintiff regarding the
number of Requests propounded to date.”
Meta does not sufficiently explain how
disclosure of such broad discovery
statements could cause it competitive
harm.
This order finds this request justified as
to the diagram on page seven of the
document, disclosure of which could
cause Meta competitive harm. The
request is otherwise denied. See entry for
Dkt. No. 161-3.
See entry for Dkt. No. 161-9.

DENIED.

See entry for Dkt. No. 161-5.

DENIED.

Internal Technical
Documentation
Parties’ Email
Correspondence

GRANTED.

Meta seeks to seal email correspondence
between the parties regarding the
instrumentalities MasterObjects accused
and its alleged failure to provide sourcecode disclosures. Meta provides only
boilerplate statements regarding how
public disclosure of this information
could cause it competitive harm. Meta
has not satisfied its burden of justifying
the sealing of this material.
See entry for Dkt. No. 161-9.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

171-5

18
19

171-6

20
21
22
23
24
25

171-7

26

171-8

27

GRANTED.

Meta seeks to seal six file paths to source
code directories disclosed in
correspondence between the parties.
There is little public interest in the file

28
5

1
2
3
4
5

171-9

6
7

171-10

8
9

171-11

10
171-12

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Transcript of
Deposition of
William Pei (2020)
Transcript of
Deposition of Iosef
Kaver
Transcript of
Deposition of
Philip Pronin
Excerpt of Meta’s
Responses to
MasterObjects’
Interrogatories

DENIED
WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
DENIED.

Transcript of
Deposition of
Bobby Zhou
Transcript of
Deposition of Ben
Mercure
Parties’ Email
Correspondence

See entry for Dkt. No. 161-13.

DENIED.

DENIED.

Meta seeks to seal a high-level overview
it provided of its Typeahead system.
This description goes to both the heart of
this litigation and, importantly, this
motion practice, so the public interest
weighs heavily in favor of disclosure.
Again, Meta has only provided
boilerplate statements regarding how a
high-level description of its system
would result in competitive harm. It also
contains no source code, despite Meta
asserting that it does. Meta has not
provided compelling reasons to keep this
material under seal.
See entry for Dkt. Nos. 161-3 and 161-5.

DENIED.

See entry for Dkt. Nos. 161-3 and 161-5.

DENIED.

Meta seeks to seal a passage of email
correspondence between the parties,
specifically, a two-sentence statement
summarizing the testimony of a Rule
30(b)(6) witness. Meta has not
adequately explained how this high-level
statement could lead to competitive
harm, and it has only provided
boilerplate statements justifying its
request. Those justifications fail.

14
15
16
17
18

20

171-13

171-14

21
22
23

171-15

See entry for Dkt. No. 161-12.

DENIED.

13

19

paths themselves for the purpose of this
motion practice. The calculus may
change, however, in other contexts.
Being narrowly tailored, this order finds
the request justified. See Finjan, Inc. v.
Proofpoint, Inc., 2016 WL 7429304, at
*2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2016) (Judge
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.).
See entry for Dkt. No. 193-3.

24
25
26
27
28
6

1

172-2

Parties’ Email
Correspondence

DENIED.

172-3

Parties’ Email
Correspondence

GRANTED IN
PART and
DENIED IN
PART.

177-3

MasterObjects’
Reply in Support
of its Motion for
Sanctions

DENIED.

177-4

Transcript of
Deposition of
William Pei (2020)
Transcript of the
Deposition of
William Pei (2022)
Excerpt of Meta’s
Responses to
MasterObjects’
Interrogatories
Transcript of
Deposition of Iosef
Kaver
Transcript of
Deposition of
William Pei (2020)

DENIED
WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
DENIED.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

177-5

22
23

177-6

24
25

177-7

26
27
28

190-3

Meta filed this material conditionally
under seal, but MasterObjects does not
seek to keep it confidential. With no
justification, the motion as to this
material is denied.
MasterObjects seeks to seal the name of
a non-party licensee, disclosure of which
could cause both MasterObjects and the
non-party licensee competitive harm
(Dkt. No. 183). Crucially, there is little
public interest in this material, which was
of only tangential importance to the
merits of the motion for sanctions. This
calculus may change, however, in other
contexts. Being narrowly tailored, this
order finds the request justified as to the
name on page two of the document. The
motion as to the other material Meta
conditionally sealed is denied. See entry
for Dkt. No. 172-2.
See entry for Dkt. No. 161-3. Meta’s
request relies on boilerplate justifications
and is clearly overbroad. For example,
Meta seeks to seal the following quoted
testimony, which is clearly not sealable:
“Q: Well, most generally, sir, isn’t
typeahead all about sending portions of
the query to try to provide predicted
relevant responses quickly? *** THE
WITNESS: I do not know.” Meta has
not provided compelling reasons to keep
this material under seal.
See entry for Dkt. No. 193-3.

See entry for Dkt. No. 161-5.

DENIED.

See entry for Dkt. No. 171-12.

DENIED.

See entry for Dkt. No. 161-12.

DENIED
WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.

See entry for Dkt. No. 193-3.

7

1
2

190-5

190-7

3
4
5

190-9

6
193-3
7
8

Transcript of
Deposition of
William Pei (2022)
Excerpt of Meta’s
Responses to
MasterObjects’
Interrogatories
Transcript of
Deposition of Iosef
Kaver
Transcript of
Deposition of
William Pei (2020)

DENIED.

See entry for Dkt. No. 161-5.

DENIED.

See entry for Dkt. No. 171-12.

DENIED.

See entry for Dkt. No. 161-12.

DENIED
WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.

Transcript of
Deposition of
William Pei (2022)
Transcript of
Deposition of Iosef
Kaver

DENIED.

In several instances, Meta seeks to seal
excerpts of its Rule 30(b)(6) witness’s
2020 deposition transcript on the grounds
that it contains confidential information
regarding its systems. All of these
requests to seal are overbroad, as a great
deal of the material goes to the heart of
this litigation. In light of the detailed
content in this document, within
FOURTEEN DAYS of the filing of this
order, Meta may submit a revised request
that justifies the sealing of any
information that may still be confidential
within this transcript and its excerpts.
See Dkt. Nos. 161-7, 171-9, 177-4, 18010, 190-3, 214-6.
See entry for Dkt. No. 161-5.

Transcript of
Deposition of
Philip Pronin

DENIED.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16

193-4

17
193-5
18
19

GRANTED
IN PART and
DENIED IN
PART.

20
21
193-6
22
23
24
2.
25
26

Meta’s request is granted as to the
intranet URLs on page 58, lines 4, 5, 7,
and 9. There is little public interest in
the intranet URLs themselves for the
purpose of this motion practice.
Otherwise, it is denied. See entry for
Dkt. No. 161-12.
See entry for Dkt. No. 161-13.

META’S MOTION TO STRIKE.

Regarding Meta’s motion to strike and related briefing and exhibits, this order rules as
follows:

27
28
8

1
2

Dkt.
No.
180-3

Document to be
Sealed
Meta’s Motion to
Strike

3
4

Result

Reasoning

GRANTED IN
PART and
DENIED IN
PART.

MasterObjects seeks to seal information
related to a non-party licensee (Dkt. No.
192). This order finds this request
narrowly tailored and that public
disclosure could cause both
MasterObjects and the non-party licensee
competitive harm. Crucially, there is
little public interest in this material,
which was of only tangential importance
to the merits of the motion to strike. This
calculus may change, however, in other
contexts. The motion is granted as to the
green highlighted material at page i, line
7 and page 4, lines 12–14, as requested.
The motion as to other material Meta
conditionally sealed on behalf of
MasterObjects is denied. See entry for
Dkt. No. 172-2.

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Meanwhile, Meta’s sealing request is
overbroad, and Meta provides only
boilerplate explanations for sealing. For
example, Meta justifies its request by
noting the existence of source code in the
document, but no source code is present.
Moreover, Meta seeks to seal the identity
of the specific accused instrumentalities
yet provides no meaningful justification
for such a request. The request fails.
Meta seeks to seal this deposition
transcript on account of alleged details
about its Typeahead system, but it
provides only boilerplate justifications.
The request is overbroad. The witness is
generally describing the number of
Typeahead sessions for the United States,
but Meta provides no explanation of why
public disclosure of this and other
information contained in the transcript
could lead to competitive harm.
Meta seeks to seal detailed, confidential
information related to its systems,
including source code, public disclosure
of which could cause it competitive
harm. This order finds the request
adequately tailored.

13
14
15
16
17
18
180-4

Transcript of
Deposition of
Jason Ament

DENIED.

180-5

MasterObjects’
Infringement
Contentions

GRANTED.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

9

1

180-6

Expert Report of
John Peck

DENIED
WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.

180-7

Internal Technical
Documentation
Transcript of
Deposition of Iosef
Kaver
Declaration of
Trevor Smedley

GRANTED.

Meta’s request to seal this 136-page
expert report in its entirety is clearly
overbroad, though it is hard to evaluate
because so many pages are blurry. In
any event, the document clearly contains
non-sealable material that goes to the
heart of this litigation. Meta’s request is
denied. In light of the detailed content in
this document, within FOURTEEN DAYS
of the filing of this order, Meta may
submit a revised request that justifies the
sealing of any information that may still
be confidential.
See entry for Dkt. No. 161-9.

DENIED.

See entry for Dkt. No. 161-12.

DENIED
WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.

Transcript of
Deposition of
William Pei (2020)
Reply Declaration
of Trevor Smedley

DENIED
WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
DENIED.

Meta’s request is overbroad and covers
non-sealable material that goes to the
heart of this litigation. However, in light
of the detailed content in this document,
within FOURTEEN DAYS of the filing of
this order, Meta may submit a revised
request that justifies the sealing of any
information that may still be confidential.
See entry for Dkt. No. 193-3.

Reply Report of
John Peck

DENIED.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

180-8

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

180-9

12
13
14
15
16

180-10

17
180-11
18
19
20
21
22
23

180-12

24
25
26
27
28
10

Meta seeks to seal this declaration
excerpt, but the excerpt appears to
contain only information that Dr.
Smedley obtained from experiments he
ran on publicly accessible versions of
Facebook that anyone could do. Meta
has not explained what information here
actually qualifies as confidential and
provides only boilerplate justifications.
Meta seeks to seal this one-page reply
report, but it provides only boilerplate
explanations. Moreover, the request is
clearly not narrowly tailored. For
example, Meta seeks to seal information
such as “I have reviewed Dr. Black’s
expert report carefully” and “I have
reviewed Dr. Smedley’s reply declaration
in preparing this reply report, and I have
relied on it in preparing this report. I

expect to include these points in my
testimony prospectively.” Meta’s
justifications therefore fail.
Meta seeks to seal this brief
correspondence but again provides only
boilerplate justifications, some of which
are inapplicable, such as the presence of
source code. Moreover, the request is
clearly not narrowly tailored, as it seeks
to seal the entire document, which is
primarily legal argument that could not
lead to competitive harm to Meta.
See entry for Dkt. No. 172-2.

1
2

180-13

Correspondence
Between the
Parties

DENIED.

181-2

MasterObjects’
Preliminary
Damages
Contentions
Meta’s Responsive
Damages
Contentions

DENIED.

Expert Report of
William Latham
Mark Smit
Disclosures
Regarding
Damages
MasterObjects’
Opposition to
Motion to Strike

GRANTED.

MasterObjects only seeks to seal material
that pertains to its agreements with nonparty licensees (Dkt. No. 192).
Crucially, there is little public interest in
this material for the purpose of this
motion practice because it was of only
tangential importance to the merits of the
motion to strike. The calculus may
change, however, in other contexts. This
order finds MasterObjects’ request
adequately tailored and that public
disclosure could cause both
MasterObjects and non-party licensees
competitive harm. The motion is granted
as to MasterObjects’ requested material.
See entry for Dkt. No. 180-3.
See entry for Dkt. No. 181-3.

GRANTED.

See entry for Dkt. No. 181-3.

GRANTED IN
PART and
DENIED IN
PART.

Meta seeks to seal material from this
briefing but only provides a laundry list
of general, boilerplate justifications.
This material goes to the heart of this
litigation, so there is a strong public
interest in it. Meta has not adequately
shown that disclosure could cause it
competitive harm. Meta incorrectly
asserts that its memorandum contains
source code. Moreover, the request is

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

181-3

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

GRANTED.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

181-4
181-5

21
22
23
24

200-3

25
26
27
28
11

overbroad and requests to seal
information that clearly does not qualify.
For example, Meta seeks to seal the fact
that it told MasterObjects it “did not keep
the topline TA metrics generated dayover-day” and that the representative data
it produced in discovery would reflect
“terabytes” of data. The request is
denied.

1
2
3
4
5
6

As to MasterObjects’ material, the
request is narrowly tailored and covers
only material public disclosure of which
could cause it competitive harm. See
entry for Dkt. No. 180-3. The request is
granted.
Meta provides only boilerplate
justifications for sealing, many of which
do not apply to this document. For
example, it contains no source code.
Moreover, the request is overbroad and
requests to seal information that clearly
does not qualify, such as testimony
regarding the number of hours Mr. Black
spent reviewing source code, where that
source code was located, and how many
files were on the source-code inspection
computer.
See entry for Dkt. No. 171-12.

7
8
9
10

200-4

Transcript of
Deposition of John
Black

DENIED.

200-5

Excerpt of Meta’s
Responses to
MasterObjects’
Interrogatories
Excerpt of Meta’s
Responses to
MasterObjects’
Interrogatories

DENIED.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

200-6

DENIED.

Meta seeks to seal an excerpt of its
responses to MasterObjects’
interrogatories in its entirety. The
request is overbroad, as it includes the
interrogatories themselves as well as
Meta’s boilerplate objections. Moreover,
Meta does not adequately explain why
public disclosure of the responses could
result in competitive harm. For example,
Meta seeks to seal broad discovery
statements, such as “Facebook will
supplement, amend, and/or modify this
response as warranted as discovery
proceeds.” Meta does not sufficiently
describe how disclosure of such broad
discovery statements could cause it harm.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12

1

200-7

Rebuttal Expert
Report of John
Black

DENIED.

200-8

Correspondence
Between the
Parties

DENIED.

200-9

Correspondence
Between the
Parties
Correspondence
Between the
Parties
Correspondence
Between the
Parties
Correspondence
Between the
Parties

DENIED.

Meta seeks to seal a rebuttal expert report
excerpt with technical information
regarding its systems. But the
information in this excerpt goes to the
heart of this case, so there is a strong
public interest in disclosure. Meta,
moreover, only provides boilerplate
justifications for sealing this material.
Meta references source code, of which
there is none in this document, only
citations to “FB_SOURCE_CODE[.]”
Meta does not adequately explain how
this high-level information is sealable.
See Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., 2015
WL 5012679, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24,
2015) (Judge William H. Orrick). The
public interest outweighs Meta’s interest
in keeping this material sealed.
Meta provides only boilerplate
justifications for sealing, many of which
do not apply to this document. For
example, this document contains no
source code. Moreover, the request is
overbroad and clearly encompasses nonsealable material, such as generic
discovery quibbles. Given the nature of
the information at issue, Meta does not
describe with particularity how
disclosure would cause it competitive
harm. It merely provides the generic
assertion that disclosure would
“potentially giv[e] bad actors a roadmap
to identifying sensitive information about
Meta’s technical operation of Typeahead
and related functionalities” (Dkt.
No. 211).
See entry for Dkt. No. 200-8.

DENIED.

See entry for Dkt. No. 200-8.

DENIED.

See entry for Dkt. No. 200-8.

DENIED.

See entry for Dkt. No. 200-8.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

200-10

24
25

200-11

26
27
28

200-12

13

1

200-13

Transcript of
Deposition of
Michael Rothschild

DENIED.

200-14

Correspondence
Between the
Parties
Correspondence
Between the
Parties
Correspondence
Between the
Parties
Transcript of
Deposition of Ben
Mercure
Correspondence
Between the
Parties
Rebuttal Expert
Report of Lauren
R. Kindler

DENIED.

Meta provides only boilerplate
justifications to seal this one-page
transcript excerpt that do not directly
address the material in question. Meta
has not adequately explained how
disclosure could lead to competitive
harm.
See entry for Dkt. No. 200-8.

DENIED.

See entry for Dkt. No. 200-8.

DENIED.

See entry for Dkt. No. 200-8.

DENIED.

See entry for Dkt. No. 200-13.

DENIED.

See entry for Dkt. No. 200-8.

GRANTED.

Excerpt of Meta’s
Responses to
MasterObjects’
Interrogatories

GRANTED IN
PART and
DENIED IN
PART.

MasterObjects seeks to seal information
related to non-party licensees from the
table of contents of a rebuttal expert
report. Crucially, there is little public
interest in this material for the purpose of
this motion practice because it was of
only tangential importance to the merits
of the motion to strike. This order finds
MasterObjects’ request adequately
tailored and that public disclosure could
cause both MasterObjects and non-party
licensees competitive harm. The
calculus may change, however, in other
contexts.
The motion is granted as to
MasterObjects’ requested material.
Again, there is little public interest in this
material for the purpose of this motion
practice, and the calculus may change in
other contexts. This order finds
MasterObjects’ request adequately
tailored and that public disclosure could
cause both MasterObjects and non-party
licensees competitive harm. Otherwise,
the request is denied. See entry for Dkt.
No. 200-6.

2
3
4
5
6
200-15
7
8

200-16

9
10

200-17

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

200-18

200-19
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
200-20
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

14

1

202-3

MasterObjects’
Opposition to
Motion to Strike

202-4

Rebuttal Expert
Report of Lauren
R. Kindler
Excerpt of Meta’s
Responses to
MasterObjects’
Interrogatories
Meta’s Reply in
Support of its
Motion to Strike

2
3
4
5

202-5

6
7

214-3

8
9

GRANTED IN
PART and
DENIED IN
PART.
GRANTED.

See entry for Dkt. No. 200-3.

GRANTED IN
PART and
DENIED IN
PART.
GRANTED IN
PART and
DENIED IN
PART.

See entry for Dkt. No. 200-20.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

214-4

Transcript of
Deposition of John
Peck

DENIED.

214-5

Transcript of
Deposition of
Trevor Smedley

GRANTED IN
PART and
DENIED IN
PART.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

15

See entry for Dkt. No. 200-19.

MasterObjects seeks to seal the identity
of a non-party licensee (Dkt. No. 220).
The proposed redaction is narrowly
tailored, and public disclosure of the
information could result in competitive
harm to MasterObjects and the non-party
licensee. Once more, there is little public
interest in this material for the purpose of
this motion practice, and the calculus
may change in other contexts. The
motion is accordingly granted as to the
green highlighted portion of page 7, line
10. See entry for Dkt. No. 180-3.
Meta has not adequately shown that
disclosure of its proposed redactions
involving, for instance, the names of the
top-level folders on the source-code
inspection computer, could cause it
competitive harm.
Meta provides only boilerplate
justifications for sealing, many of which
do not apply to this document, let alone
the highlighted material. Meta has not
adequately shown that disclosure could
cause it competitive harm.
Meta’s request is granted as to the name
of the source code method at page 28,
line 2, and the file name at line 6. There
is little public interest in the names
themselves for the purpose of this motion
practice. Otherwise, it is denied. The
remaining material goes to the heart of
this litigation, so there is a strong public
interest in it. Meta has not adequately
shown that disclosure could cause it
competitive harm.

1
2

214-6

Transcript of
Deposition of
William Pei (2020)
Transcript of
Deposition of
Trevor Smedley

DENIED
WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
GRANTED IN
PART and
DENIED IN
PART.

214-8

Rebuttal Expert
Report of John
Black

GRANTED IN
PART and
DENIED IN
PART.

214-9

Excerpt of Meta’s
Responses to
MasterObjects’
Interrogatories
Meta’s Reply in
Support of its
Motion to Strike

DENIED.

214-7

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

215-2

15
16

248-4

Rebuttal Expert
Report of Lauren
R. Kindler

249-4

Transcript of
Deposition of
Mark Smit

17

GRANTED IN
PART and
DENIED IN
PART.
GRANTED.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

GRANTED
IN PART and
DENIED IN
PART.

26
27
28
16

See entry for Dkt. No. 193-3.

Meta’s request is granted as to the name
of the source code methods at page 132
of the transcript, lines 18 and 22. There
is little public interest in the names
themselves for the purpose of this motion
practice. Otherwise, Meta’s request is
denied. See entry for Dkt. No. 200-7.
Meta’s request is granted only as to the
names of source code methods, classes,
and files, as well as source code line
numbers, that appear in Section X.B of
the report. There is little public interest in
the names and line numbers themselves
for the purpose of this motion practice.
Otherwise, Meta’s request is denied. See
entry for Dkt. Nos. 200-7.
See entry for Dkt. No. 171-12.

See entry for Dkt. No. 214-3.

MasterObjects here seeks to seal the
entirety of a rebuttal expert report with
confidential material, public disclosure of
which may cause MasterObjects and
non-party licensees competitive harm.
Elsewhere, however, MasterObjects has
allowed the disclosure of a redacted
version of the entire document, as well as
a redacted excerpt. See entry for Dkt.
Nos. 200-19, 239-8. Accordingly, the
public interest in this material has been
served elsewhere. The motion is granted
as to this document.
MasterObjects seeks to seal information
that relates to non-party licensees. This
order grants the motion with respect to
the highlighted content at page 55 of the
transcript, lines 2–4, because disclosure
of this material could cause
MasterObjects and non-party licensees
competitive harm. See entry for Dkt. No.

1
2
3
4

249-5

Transcript of
Deposition of
Mark Smit

GRANTED.

249-6

Transcript of
Deposition of
Mark Smit
Transcript of
Deposition of
William
Hassebrock

GRANTED.

249-8

Rebuttal Expert
Report of Lauren
R. Kindler

GRANTED.

249-9

Transcript of
Deposition of
Mark Smit

GRANTED.

5
6
7
8
9
10

249-7

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

DENIED.

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

180-3. Otherwise, MasterObjects’
request is denied because it is overbroad.
That MasterObjects has entered into
plural “settlements,” for example, is not
confidential.
The motion is granted as to
MasterObjects’ requested material. This
order finds MasterObjects’ request
adequately tailored and that public
disclosure could cause both
MasterObjects and a non-party licensee
competitive harm. See entry for Dkt. No.
200-19.
See entry for Dkt. No. 249-5.
MasterObjects’ request to seal this threeline answer is denied. That
MasterObjects is “now in the licensing
business” is not confidential. Disclosure
of this fact, and the corollary that
MasterObjects has “received some
significant license revenue,” will not
cause competitive harm.
See entry for Dkt. No. 248-4.
MasterObjects seeks to seal information
from this 59-page expert report, which
discusses non-party licensees at great
length. This order finds MasterObjects’
request narrowly tailored and that public
disclosure could cause both
MasterObjects and non-party licensees
competitive harm. Crucially, there is
little public interest in this material for
the purpose of this motion practice
because it was of only tangential
importance to the merits of the motion to
strike. This calculus may change,
however, in other contexts. See entry for
Dkt. No. 181-3.
See entry for Dkt. No. 249-5.

META’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

26

3.

27

Regarding Meta’s motion for summary judgment and related briefing and exhibits, this

28

order rules as follows:
17

1
2

Dkt.
No.
208-3

Document to be
Sealed
Meta’s Motion for
Summary
Judgment

208-4
208-5
208-6
208-7
208-8
208-9
208-10
208-11
208-12
208-13
208-14
208-15
208-16
208-17
208-18
208-19
208-20
229-1

Exhibits Filed in
Connection with
Meta’s Motion for
Summary
Judgment

MOOT.

Expert Report of
John Peck

DENIED.

3

Result

Reasoning

DENIED.

Meta seeks to seal general information
regarding its pre-suit knowledge of the
patents, an issue it put in dispute with its
summary judgment motion. Meta
provides only boilerplate explanations
that are not even applicable to this
content, such as how disclosure would
“potentially giv[e] bad actors a roadmap
to identifying sensitive information about
Meta’s technical operation of Typeahead
and related functionalities.” Meta’s
justifications fail.
Meta filed a notice of errata and refiled
these exhibits to comply with the case
management order (see Dkt. No. 227).
The sealing motion regarding these
documents is accordingly moot.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Meta seeks to seal material in this expert
report involving “What [Typeahead]
Sends Publicly in Making a [Typeahead]
Call to its Server-Side.” It appears
anyone could access this information
regarding the technical details of
messages the Facebook client on a
computer or phone sends to Meta’s
server. Meta does not explain how
public disclosure of this information
could cause it competitive harm and
provides only boilerplate explanations,
such as how disclosure would
“potentially giv[e] bad actors a roadmap
to identifying sensitive information about

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18

Meta’s technical operation of Typeahead
and related functionalities.”
See entry for Dkt. No. 200-7.

1
2

229-2

Rebuttal Expert
Report of John
Black
Transcript of
Deposition of
Trevor Smedley

DENIED.

229-4

Transcript of
Deposition of
David von Bargen

GRANTED IN
PART and
DENIED IN
PART.

229-5

Transcript of
Deposition of
Matthew Avery

DENIED.

3
4

229-3

5

GRANTED IN
PART and
DENIED IN
PART.

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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

Meta’s request is granted as to the name
of the source code method at page 236 of
the transcript, line 17. There is little
public interest in the name itself for the
purpose of this motion practice.
Otherwise, the request is denied. See
entry for Dkt. No. 200-7.
Meta seeks to seal deposition transcript
language involving certain prior
litigation and settlements between Meta
and non-party licensees. There is little
public interest in these passages for the
purpose of this motion practice, which is
outweighed by the threat of competitive
harm to Meta and non-party licensees.
The motion is granted for the proposed
redactions up until page 25 of the
transcript, line 3. This calculus may
change, however, in other contexts.
Meanwhile, the motion is denied for the
remaining proposed redactions, which
involve high-level information about
Meta’s use of outside counsel for patent
prosecution. That Meta uses outside
counsel for patent prosecution is not
confidential, and it is unclear how such
high-level information could cause Meta
competitive harm. This information goes
to pre-suit knowledge of the patents, an
issue Meta put in dispute with its
summary judgment motion.
See entry for Dkt. No. 229-4. Meta seeks
to seal high-level information about its
use of outside counsel for patent
prosecution. That Meta uses outside
counsel for patent prosecution is not
confidential, and it is unclear how such
information could cause Meta
competitive harm. Such information
goes to pre-suit knowledge of the patents,
an issue Meta put in dispute with its
summary judgment motion.

1
2

229-6

Transcript of
Deposition of
Christopher King
Transcript of
Deposition of
Henry Tang
MasterObjects’
Opposition to
Meta’s Motion for
Summary
Judgment

DENIED.

See entry for Dkt. No. 229-5.

DENIED.

See entry for Dkt. No. 229-5.

DENIED.

233-5

Transcript of
Deposition of
Markus MessnerChaney

DENIED.

233-6

Rebuttal Expert
Report of John
Peck

DENIED.

233-7

Excerpt of Meta’s
Responses to
MasterObjects’
Interrogatories

DENIED.

Meta seeks to seal information in
MasterObjects’ opposition brief to a
dispositive motion Meta filed. This
information goes to the heart of the case,
so there is a strong public interest in
disclosure. Meta, moreover, only
provides boilerplate justifications for
sealing this material, such as how
disclosure would “potentially giv[e] bad
actors a roadmap to identifying sensitive
information about Meta’s technical
operation of Typeahead and related
functionalities.” Meta does not
adequately explain how high-level
information contained in this document is
sealable. Moreover, Meta’s request is
overbroad and clearly includes nonsealable material, such as the fact that
Meta relies on outside counsel to handle
patent prosecution work. The public
interest outweighs Meta’s interest in
keeping the material sealed.
Meta seeks to seal deposition transcript
language. This information goes to the
heart of this case, so there is a strong
public interest in disclosure. Meta,
moreover, only provides boilerplate
justifications for sealing this material.
Meta seeks to seal expert opinion
material regarding the validity of the
patents-in-suit but does not explain how
this analysis addresses its system such
that disclosure could result in
competitive harm. Patents are publicly
available documents. With no
explanation, only boilerplate
justifications, this request fails.
Meta seeks to seal an excerpt of its
responses to MasterObjects’
interrogatories. This information goes to
the heart of this litigation and also
primarily addresses the patents, not

229-7

3
4

233-4

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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

DENIED.

Meta’s system. It is unclear how
disclosure could result in competitive
harm to Meta. Meta does not explain and
only provides boilerplate justifications.
See entry for Dkt. No. 229-5.

DENIED.

See entry for Dkt. No. 229-5.

DENIED.

See entry for Dkt. No. 229-5.

DENIED.

See entry for Dkt. No. 229-5.

DENIED.

See entry for Dkt. No. 229-5.

1
2
3

233-8

4
5

233-9

6
233-10
7
8

240-3

9
10

240-4

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Transcript of
Deposition of
Matthew Avery
Transcript of
Deposition of
Christopher King
Transcript of
Deposition of
Henry Tang
Transcript of
Deposition of
Christopher King
Transcript of
Deposition of
Matthew Avery

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

4.

META’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERTS.

Regarding Meta’s motion to exclude experts and related briefing and exhibits, this order
rules as follows:
Dkt.
No.
209-2
209-3
209-4
209-5
209-6
209-7
209-8
209-9
209-10
209-11
209-12
209-13
209-14
209-15
209-16
230-1
237-4
237-5
237-6

Document to be
Sealed
N/A

Result

Reasoning

GRANTED.

21

No ruling was made on this motion prior
to termination of the litigation, so the
public interest in this material is de
minimis.

1
2

251-3
252-2
261-2
261-3

3
4

5.

5

Regarding these miscellaneous filings, this order rules as follows:

6
7

Dkt.
No.
224-2

Document to be
Sealed
Meta’s Submission
Regarding Claim
Construction Issues
in Related Case

287-3

MasterObjects’
Response to
Request for
Information

GRANTED.

287-4

Requested
Correspondence
with Non-Party
Licensee

GRANTED.

287-5

Requested
Correspondence
with Non-Party
Licensee

GRANTED.

8
9
10
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

MISCELLANEOUS FILINGS.

12

Result

Reasoning

DENIED.

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

22

Meta filed this material conditionally
under seal, but MasterObjects does not
seek to keep it confidential (Dkt. No.
235). With no justification, the motion
as to this material is denied.
MasterObjects filed this document in
response to the Court’s request for
information regarding why
MasterObjects sought to seal one nonparty’s name in some instances but not in
others. Given that MasterObjects’
request to seal is narrowly tailored, and
that public interest in this information is
minimal for the purpose of this motion
practice, the motion to seal is granted
with request to MasterObjects’ proposed
redactions. This calculus may change,
however, in other contexts.
MasterObjects filed this document in
response to the Court’s request for
“correspondence in which the non-party
licensees ‘recently expressed [their]
desire that MasterObjects seek to seal
material related to their respective
agreements with MasterObjects.’” Given
that MasterObjects’ request to seal is
narrowly tailored, and that public interest
in this information is minimal for the
purpose of this motion practice, the
motion to seal is granted with request to
MasterObjects’ proposed redactions.
This calculus may change, however, in
other contexts.
See entry for Dkt. No. 287-4.

1
2

287-6

Requested
Correspondence
with Non-Party
Licensee

GRANTED.

See entry for Dkt. No. 287-4.

3
4

CONCLUSION

5

In sum, the motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. With respect to

6

motions to seal that this order denied without prejudice, revised requests may be submitted that

7

justify sealing any information that may still be confidential within FOURTEEN DAYS. All other

8

documents shall be refiled in full compliance with this order no later than MAY 19, 2023,

9

at 12:00 P.M.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 7, 2023.

12
13
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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