Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc.

Filing 207

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ( 167 , 179 ) MOTIONS TO SEAL. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2020)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

EXELTIS USA INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

FIRST DATABANK, INC.,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO
SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 167, 179,

Defendant.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-04810-HSG

12
Pending before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal portions

13
14

of documents in connection with motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions. The Court

15

GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motions for the reasons described below.

16
17

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal

18

documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana

19

v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the

20

common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records

21

and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of

22

access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this

23

strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion

24

must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the

25

general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in

26

understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations

27

omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in

28

disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a

1

vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public

2

scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v.

3

Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records

4

may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not,

5

without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id.
Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. The party seeking

6
7

to file under seal must submit “a request that establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are

8

privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . . The

9

request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material . . . .” Civil L.R. 795(b). Courts have found that “confidential business information” in the form of “license

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies”

12

satisfies the “compelling reasons” standard. See In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17-cv-0108-GPC-

13

MDD, 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) (observing that sealing such information

14

“prevent[ed] competitors from gaining insight into the parties’ business model and strategy”);

15

Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc., No. 13-cv-03345-BLF (JSC), 2015 WL 3988132, at *5 (N.D. Cal.

16

June 30, 2015).
Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of

17
18

Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only

19

tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80

20

(quotations omitted). This requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm

21

will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp.,

22

307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of

23

harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman

24

Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted).

25
26

II.

DISCUSSION
Because the parties seek to seal portions and documents which pertain to summary

27

judgment motions, the Court applies the compelling reasons standard to these documents. The

28

Court applies the lower good cause standard for those documents related to the parties’ Daubert
2

1
2

motions.
As indicated in the table below, the only proffered justification for sealing many of the
documents is that the information was designated as “confidential” or “confidential – attorneys’

4

eyes only” by either Plaintiff or Defendant pursuant to the parties’ protective order. But a

5

designation of confidentiality is not sufficient to establish that a document is sealable. See Civ. L.

6

R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). “Confidential” is merely the parties’ initial designation of confidentiality to

7

establish coverage under the stipulated protective order. See Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa

8

Diagnostics, Inc., No. 12-cv-05501-SI, 2015 WL 5117083, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2015) (“But

9

good cause ‘cannot be established simply by showing that the document is subject to a protective

10

order or by stating in general terms that the material is considered to be confidential’”) (quoting

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

3

Bain v. AstraZeneca LP, No. 09-cv-4147, 2011 WL 482767, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2011)).

12

Thus, many of the parties’ motions do not comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A). In

13

addition, in many instances the designating party for the materials did not comply with Civil Local

14

Rule 79-5(e)(1), because they did not file a declaration within four days of the motion. See Civ.

15

L.R. 79-5(e)(1). The Court finds that sealing is not warranted as to those documents. The parties

16

also appear to have omitted some exhibits, either as public or under seal versions, so the Court

17

could not make a determination about whether sealing is warranted in those circumstances.

18

Nevertheless, the Court finds that as to the remaining documents, the parties have narrowly

19

tailored their requested redactions to confidential and proprietary business, sales, or licensing

20

information, including the identities of the customers who subscribe to Defendant’s database and

21

Defendant’s financial performance and company strategy. The public release of these documents

22

could give non-party competitors an unfair advantage in the development or marketing of rival

23

products. See In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (ordering sealing where

24

documents could be used “‘as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s

25

competitive standing’”) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)).

26

Thus, the Court finds that the parties have in those circumstances established either compelling

27

reasons or good cause to grant the motions to file under seal. See, e.g., Linex Techs., Inc. v.

28

Hewlett-Packard Co., No. C 13-159 CW, 2014 WL 6901744 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014); Apple Inc.
3

1

v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 6115623 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10,

2

2012).

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
24
25
26
27
28

Docket No.
Public /(Sealed)

Document

Portion(s) Sought to be
Ruling
Sealed
Dkt. No. 167 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART
Dkt. No. 168/
Defendant’s Motion for
Excerpts
DENIED
(167-5)
Summary Judgment
(No supporting
declaration filed. See
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)
Dkt. No. 170/
Motion to Exclude the
Excerpts
DENIED
(167-9)
Purported Expert Report
(No supporting
and Testimony of Norman
declaration filed. See
Smith
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)
Dkt. No. 169/
Motion to Exclude the
Excerpts
DENIED
(167-7)
Purported Testimony of
(No supporting
Kevin Gorospe
declaration filed. See
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)
Dkt. No. 171-8/
Exhibit H to the
Entire Document
DENIED
(167-12)
Declaration of Ravi V.
(No supporting
Sitwala in Support of
declaration filed. See
Defendant’s Motions for
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)
Summary Judgment and
to Strike Expert
Testimony
Dkt. No. 171-9/
Exhibit I to the
Entire Document
DENIED
(167-13)
Declaration of Ravi V.
(No supporting
Sitwala in Support of
declaration filed. See
Defendant’s Motions for
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)
Summary Judgment and
to Strike Expert
Testimony
Dkt. No. 171-11/ Exhibit K to the
Entire Document
DENIED
(167-14)
Declaration of Ravi V.
(No supporting
Sitwala in Support of
declaration filed. See
Defendant’s Motions for
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)
Summary Judgment and
to Strike Expert
Testimony
Dkt. No. 171-12/ Exhibit L to the
Entire Document
DENIED
(167-15)
Declaration of Ravi V.
(No supporting
Sitwala in Support of
declaration filed. See
Defendant’s Motions for
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)
Summary Judgment and
to Strike Expert
Testimony
4

1

Dkt. No. 171-13/
(167-16)

2
3
4
5

Dkt. No. 171-14/
(167-17)

6
7
8
9

Dkt. No. 171-15/
(167-18)

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Dkt. No. 171-16/
(167-19)

14
15
16
17

Dkt. No. 171-17/
(167-20)

18
19
20
21

Dkt. No. 171-18/
(167-21)

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Dkt. No. 171-19/
(167-22)

Exhibit M to the
Declaration of Ravi V.
Sitwala in Support of
Defendant’s Motions for
Summary Judgment and
to Strike Expert
Testimony
Exhibit N to the
Declaration of Ravi V.
Sitwala in Support of
Defendant’s Motions for
Summary Judgment and
to Strike Expert
Testimony
Exhibit O to the
Declaration of Ravi V.
Sitwala in Support of
Defendant’s Motions for
Summary Judgment and
to Strike Expert
Testimony
Exhibit P to the
Declaration of Ravi V.
Sitwala in Support of
Defendant’s Motions for
Summary Judgment and
to Strike Expert
Testimony
Exhibit Q to the
Declaration of Ravi V.
Sitwala in Support of
Defendant’s Motions for
Summary Judgment and
to Strike Expert
Testimony
Exhibit R to the
Declaration of Ravi V.
Sitwala in Support of
Defendant’s Motions for
Summary Judgment and
to Strike Expert
Testimony
Exhibit S to the
Declaration of Ravi V.
Sitwala in Support of
Defendant’s Motions for
Summary Judgment and
to Strike Expert

Entire Document

DENIED
(No supporting
declaration filed. See
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Entire Document

DENIED
(No supporting
declaration filed. See
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Entire Document

DENIED
(No supporting
declaration filed. See
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Entire Document

DENIED
(No supporting
declaration filed. See
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Entire Document

DENIED
(No supporting
declaration filed. See
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Entire Document

DENIED
(No supporting
declaration filed. See
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Entire Document

DENIED
(No supporting
declaration filed. See
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

5

1
2

Dkt. No. 171-20/
(167-23)

3
4
5
6

Dkt. No. 171-21/
(167-24)

7
8
9
10

Dkt. No. 171-22/
(167-25)

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Dkt. No. 171-23/
(167-26)

15
16
17
18

Dkt. No. 171-26/
(167-27)

19
20
21
22

Dkt. No. 171-29/
(167-28)

23
24
25
26
27
28

Dkt. No. 171-39/
(167-29)

Testimony
Exhibit T to the
Declaration of Ravi V.
Sitwala in Support of
Defendant’s Motions for
Summary Judgment and
to Strike Expert
Testimony
Exhibit U to the
Declaration of Ravi V.
Sitwala in Support of
Defendant’s Motions for
Summary Judgment and
to Strike Expert
Testimony
Exhibit V to the
Declaration of Ravi V.
Sitwala in Support of
Defendant’s Motions for
Summary Judgment and
to Strike Expert
Testimony
Exhibit W to the
Declaration of Ravi V.
Sitwala in Support of
Defendant’s Motions for
Summary Judgment and
to Strike Expert
Testimony
Exhibit Z to the
Declaration of Ravi V.
Sitwala in Support of
Defendant’s Motions for
Summary Judgment and
to Strike Expert
Testimony
Exhibit CC to the
Declaration of Ravi V.
Sitwala in Support of
Defendant’s Motions for
Summary Judgment and
to Strike Expert
Testimony
Exhibit MM to the
Declaration of Ravi V.
Sitwala in Support of
Defendant’s Motions for
Summary Judgment and

Entire Document

DENIED
(No supporting
declaration filed. See
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Entire Document

DENIED
(No supporting
declaration filed. See
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Entire Document

DENIED
(No supporting
declaration filed. See
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Entire Document

DENIED
(No supporting
declaration filed. See
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Entire Document

DENIED
(No supporting
declaration filed. See
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Entire Document

DENIED
(No supporting
declaration filed. See
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Entire Document

DENIED
(No supporting
declaration filed. See
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

6

1
2

Dkt. No. 171-41/
(167-29)

3
4
5
6

Dkt. No. 171-43/
(167-30)

7
8
9
10

Dkt. No. 171-44/
(167-31)

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

Dkt. No. 180/
(179-2)

to Strike Expert
Testimony
Exhibit OO to the
Declaration of Ravi V.
Sitwala in Support of
Defendant’s Motions for
Summary Judgment and
to Strike Expert
Testimony
Exhibit QQ to the
Declaration of Ravi V.
Sitwala in Support of
Defendant’s Motions for
Summary Judgment and
to Strike Expert
Testimony
Exhibit RR to the
Declaration of Ravi V.
Sitwala in Support of
Defendant’s Motions for
Summary Judgment and
to Strike Expert
Testimony

Entire Document

DENIED
(No supporting
declaration filed. See
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Excerpts

GRANTED
(Contains proprietary
business information
about Defendant’s
subscribers. See Dkt.
No. 167-2.)

Entire Document

GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED
IN PART
(Pages 14 and 15
contain proprietary
business information
about Defendant’s
subscribers.
However, no
supporting
declaration filed as to
the rest of the
document. See Civ.
L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)
Dkt. No. 179 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART
Page 4:13–17
GRANTED
Page 5:2–21
(Contains proprietary
Page 6:3–6, 12–25
business information
Page 7:1–12, 17–28
about Defendant’s
Page 8:1–6
subscribers. See Dkt.
Page 12:11–13
Nos. 184, 185.)
Page 15:5–17, 20–23
Page 16:1–8, 1–28
Page 17:1, 4–7, 11–16
Page 20:2
Page 22:3–28
Page 23:1–9
Page 24:1–4, 14–28
Page 25:1–7
Page 26:1–26
Page 27:1–4
Page 30:15–17
7

1

Page 33:8–9, 28
Page 34:1–23
Entire Document

(179-3)

Exhibit 2 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

(179-4)

Exhibit 3 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

Entire Document

(179-5)

2

Exhibit 8 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

Entire Document

(179-6)

Exhibit 9 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

Entire Document

(179-7)

Exhibit 10 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

Entire Document

(179-8)

Exhibit 11 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of

Entire Document

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
24
25
26
27
28

8

GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED
IN PART
(Granted only as to
the text that contains
proprietary business
information
identifying
Defendant’s
customers. See Dkt.
Nos. 184, 185.)
GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED
IN PART
(Granted only as to
the text that contains
proprietary business
information
identifying
Defendant’s
customers. See Dkt.
Nos. 184, 185.)
GRANTED
(Contains proprietary
business information
about Plaintiff’s
contracts with third
parties. See Dkt. No.
179-1.)
GRANTED
(Contains proprietary
business information
about Plaintiff’s
contracts with third
parties. See Dkt. No.
179-1.)
GRANTED
(Contains proprietary
business information
about Plaintiff’s
contracts with third
parties. See Dkt. No.
179-1.)
GRANTED
(Contains proprietary
business information

Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

1
2

Exhibit 12 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment
Exhibit 13 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

Entire Document

(179-10)

3

N/A

Exhibit 16 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

Entire Document

(179-11)

Exhibit 17 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment
Exhibit 18 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

Entire Document

Exhibit 19 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

Entire Document

4
5
6
(179-9)
7
8
9

Entire Document

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

(179-12)

21
22
23

Entire Document

24
25
26
27
28

(179-13)

9

about Plaintiff’s
contracts with third
parties. See Dkt. No.
179-1.)
DENIED
(No public or sealed
version of the
document for review.)

GRANTED
(Contains proprietary
business information
about Plaintiff’s
contracts with third
parties. See Dkt. No.
179-1.)
GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED
IN PART
(Granted only as to
the text that contains
proprietary business
information
identifying
Defendant’s
customers. See Dkt.
Nos. 184, 185.)
GRANTED
(Contains proprietary
business information
about Defendant’s
subscribers. See Dkt.
Nos. 184, 191.)
GRANTED
(Contains proprietary
business information
about Defendant’s
financial performance
and company
strategy. See Dkt.
No. 184.)
DENIED
(No supporting
declaration filed. See
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

(179-14)

Exhibit 20 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

Entire Document

(179-15)

Exhibit 21 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

Entire Document

(179-16)

1

Exhibit 22 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

Entire Document

(179-17)

Exhibit 23 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment
Exhibit 24 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment
Exhibit 25 to the

Entire Document

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
24

(179-18)

25
26
27
28

(179-19)

GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED
IN PART
(Granted only as to
the text that contains
proprietary business
information
identifying
Defendant’s
customers. See Dkt.
Nos. 184, 185.)
GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED
IN PART
(Granted only as to
the text that contains
proprietary business
information
identifying
Defendant’s
customers and
regarding customer
contracts. See Dkt.
Nos. 184, 185.)
GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED
IN PART
(Granted only as to
the text that contains
proprietary business
information
identifying
Defendant’s
customers. See Dkt.
Nos. 184, 185.)
DENIED
(No supporting
declaration filed. See
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Entire Document

DENIED
(No supporting
declaration filed. See
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Entire Document

GRANTED IN

10

Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

1
2
3
4
5
6

(179-20)

7
8
9
10

(179-21)

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Exhibit 28 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment
Exhibit 29 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

Entire Document

Exhibit 30 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment
Exhibit 32 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment
Exhibit 33 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

Entire Document

Exhibit 34 to the
Declaration of Benjamin

Entire Document

Entire Document

14
15
16

(179-22)

17
18
19
20

(179-23)

21
22
23

(179-24)

24
25
26
27
28

(179-25)

PART and DENIED
IN PART
(Granted only as to
the text that contains
proprietary business
information
identifying
Defendant’s
customers. See Dkt.
Nos. 184, 185.)
DENIED
(No supporting
declaration filed. See
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED
IN PART
(Granted only as to
the text that contains
proprietary business
information
identifying
Defendant’s
customers. See Dkt.
Nos. 184, 185.)
DENIED
(No supporting
declaration filed. See
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Entire Document

DENIED
(No supporting
declaration filed. See
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Entire Document

GRANTED
(Contains proprietary
business information
relating to the
operations of
Defendant. See Dkt.
Nos. 90, 184, 185.)
DENIED
(No supporting

11

1
2
3

(179-26)

4
5
6

M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment
Exhibit 35 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

declaration filed. See
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Entire Document

7
8
9

N/A

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

(179-27)

14
15
16

Exhibit 36 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment
Exhibit 37 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

Entire Document

Exhibit 39 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment
Exhibit 40 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

Entire Document

Entire Document

17
18
19

(179-28)

20
21
22
23
24
25

(179-29)

Entire Document

26
27
28
12

GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED
IN PART
(Granted only as to
the text that contains
proprietary business
information
identifying
Defendant’s
customers. See Dkt.
Nos. 184, 185.)
DENIED
(No public or sealed
version of the
document for review.)

GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED
IN PART
(Granted only as to
the text that contains
proprietary business
information
identifying
Defendant’s
customers. See Dkt.
Nos. 184, 185.)
DENIED
(No supporting
declaration filed. See
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED
IN PART
(Granted only as to
the text that contains
proprietary business
information
identifying
Defendant’s
customers. See Dkt.

1

(179-30)

Exhibit 41 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

Entire Document

(179-31)

Exhibit 42 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment
Exhibit 48 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment
Exhibit 49 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment
Exhibit 51 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

Entire Document

Exhibit 52 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment
Exhibit 53 to the

Entire Document

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

(179-32)

12
13
14
15

(179-33)

16
17
18

(179-34)

19
20
21

Entire Document

DENIED
(No supporting
declaration filed. See
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Entire Document

DENIED
(No supporting
declaration filed. See
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Entire Document

GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED
IN PART
(Granted only as to
the text that contains
proprietary business
information
identifying
Defendant’s
customers. See Dkt.
Nos. 184, 185.)
DENIED
(No supporting
declaration filed. See
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

22
23
24

(179-35)

25
26
27
28

(179-36)

Nos. 184, 185.)
GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED
IN PART
(Granted only as to
the text that contains
proprietary business
information
identifying
Defendant’s
customers. See Dkt.
Nos. 184, 185.)
DENIED
(No supporting
declaration filed. See
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Entire Document
13

GRANTED IN

Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

1
2
3
4
5
6

(179-37)

Exhibit 54 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

Entire Document

(179-38)

Exhibit 55 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

Entire Document

(179-39)

Exhibit 56 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

Entire Document

(179-40)

Exhibit 57 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary

Entire Document

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

14

PART and DENIED
IN PART
(Granted only as to
the text that contains
proprietary business
information
identifying
Defendant’s
customers. See Dkt.
Nos. 184, 185.)
GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED
IN PART
(Granted only as to
the text that contains
proprietary business
information
identifying
Defendant’s
customers. See Dkt.
Nos. 184, 185.)
GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED
IN PART
(Granted only as to
the text that contains
proprietary business
information
identifying
Defendant’s
customers. See Dkt.
Nos. 184, 185.)
GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED
IN PART
(Granted only as to
the text that contains
proprietary business
information
identifying
Defendant’s
customers. See Dkt.
Nos. 184, 185.)
GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED
IN PART
(Granted only as to
the text that contains

Judgment

1
2
3
4

(179-41)

Exhibit 58 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

Entire Document

(179-42)

Exhibit 59 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

Entire Document

(179-43)

Exhibit 60 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

Entire Document

(179-44)

Exhibit 61 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment
Exhibit 63 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

Entire Document

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

(179-45)

Entire Document

28
15

proprietary business
information
identifying
Defendant’s
customers. See Dkt.
Nos. 184, 185.)
GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED
IN PART
(Granted only as to
the text that contains
proprietary business
information
identifying
Defendant’s
customers. See Dkt.
Nos. 184, 185.)
GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED
IN PART
(Granted only as to
the text that contains
proprietary business
information
identifying
Defendant’s
customers. See Dkt.
Nos. 184, 185.)
GRANTED
(Contains proprietary
business information
and survey responses
with demographic
information. See Dkt.
No. 179-1.)
DENIED
(No supporting
declaration filed. See
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED
IN PART
(Granted only as to
the text that contains
proprietary business
information

1
2
3

(179-46)

4
5
6
(179-47)
7
8
9
10

(179-48)

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

(179-49)

14
15
16

Exhibit 64 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment
Exhibit 65 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment
Exhibit 66 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment
Exhibit 67 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

Entire Document

Exhibit 68 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment
Exhibit 69 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

Entire Document

Entire Document

DENIED
(No supporting
declaration filed. See
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Entire Document

DENIED
(No supporting
declaration filed. See
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Entire Document

GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED
IN PART
(Granted only as to
the text that contains
proprietary business
information
identifying
Defendant’s
customers. See Dkt.
Nos. 184, 185.)
DENIED
(No supporting
declaration filed. See
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

17
18
19
20

(179-50)

21
22
23
24
25
26

(179-51)

identifying
Defendant’s
customers. See Dkt.
Nos. 184, 185.)
DENIED
(No supporting
declaration filed. See
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

Entire Document

27
28
16

GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED
IN PART
(Granted only as to
the text that contains
proprietary business
information
identifying
Defendant’s

1
2

(179-52)

Exhibit 72 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

Entire Document

(179-53)

Exhibit 73 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

Entire Document

(179-54)

Exhibit 74 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

Entire Document

(179-55)

Exhibit 75 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

Entire Document

(179-56)

Exhibit 78 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment
Exhibit 79 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

Entire Document

Exhibit 80 to the

Entire Document

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
(179-57)
22
23
24

Entire Document

25
26
27
28

(179-58)

17

customers. See Dkt.
Nos. 184, 185.)
GRANTED
(Contains proprietary
business information
about Defendant’s
contracts with thirdparty customers. See
Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.)
GRANTED
(Contains proprietary
business information
about Defendant’s
contracts with thirdparty customers. See
Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.)
GRANTED
(Contains proprietary
business information
about Defendant’s
contracts with thirdparty customers. See
Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.)
GRANTED
(Contains proprietary
business information
about Defendant’s
contracts with thirdparty customers. See
Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.)
DENIED
(No supporting
declaration filed. See
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED
IN PART
(Granted only as to
the text that contains
proprietary business
information
identifying
Defendant’s
customers. See Dkt.
Nos. 184, 185.)
GRANTED IN

Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

1
2
3
4
5
6

(179-59)

Exhibit 81 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

Entire Document

(179-60)

Exhibit 82 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

Entire Document

(179-61)

Exhibit 83 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

Entire Document

(179-62)

Exhibit 84 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary

Entire Document

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

18

PART and DENIED
IN PART
(Granted only as to
the text that contains
proprietary business
information
identifying
Defendant’s
customers. See Dkt.
Nos. 184, 185.)
GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED
IN PART
(Granted only as to
the text that contains
proprietary business
information
identifying
Defendant’s
customers. See Dkt.
Nos. 184, 185.)
GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED
IN PART
(Granted only as to
the text that contains
proprietary business
information
identifying
Defendant’s
customers. See Dkt.
Nos. 184, 185.)
GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED
IN PART
(Granted only as to
the text that contains
proprietary business
information
identifying
Defendant’s
customers. See Dkt.
Nos. 184, 185.)
DENIED
(No supporting
declaration filed. See
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).)

1

(179-63)

2
3
4

Judgment
Exhibit 85 to the
Declaration of Benjamin
M. Mundel in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to
the Motion for Summary
Judgment

Entire Document

5
6
7

GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED
IN PART
(Granted only as to
the text that contains
proprietary business
information
identifying
Defendant’s
customers. See Dkt.
Nos. 184, 185.)

8
9

III.

CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the parties’ administrative

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

motions to file under seal. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(1), documents filed under seal as

12

to which the administrative motions are granted will remain under seal. The Court DIRECTS the

13

parties to file public versions of all documents for which the proposed sealing has been denied, as

14

indicated in the chart above, within seven days from the date of this order.

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 6/1/2020
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19