CLRB Hanson Industries, LLC et al v. Google Inc.

Filing 169

DECLARATION of M. Christopher Jhang in response to 140 Third MOTION to Seal Pursuant to CIV. L.R. 79-5(d) Portions of plaintiff's Memo in opposition filed by Google Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 140 ) (Jhang, Christopher) (Filed on 5/29/2007) Modified on 5/30/2007 (cv, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
CLRB Hanson Industries, LLC et al v. Google Inc. Doc. 169 Case 5:05-cv-03649-JW Document 169 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 DAVID T. BIDERMAN, Bar No. 101577 JUDITH B. GITTERMAN, Bar No. 115661 M. CHRISTOPHER JHANG, Bar No. 211463 PERKINS COIE LLP Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 2400 San Francisco, CA 94111-4131 Telephone: (415) 344-7000 Facsimile: (415) 344-7050 Email: DBiderman@perkinscoie.com Email: JGitterman@perkinscoie.com Email: CJhang@perkinscoie.com Attorneys for Defendant Google Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION CLRB HANSON INDUSTRIES, LLC d/b/a INDUSTRIAL PRINTING, and HOWARD STERN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, CASE NO. C O5-03649 JW DECLARATION OF M. CHRISTOPHER JHANG IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' THIRD MOTION TO SEAL PURSUANT TO CIV. L.R. 79-5(d) PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION MEMORANDUM (DOCUMENT NOS. 140-142) Date: Time: Dept.: Judge: June 11, 2007 9:00 a.m. Courtroom 8 Honorable James Ware 15 v. 16 GOOGLE, INC., 17 Defendant. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Jhang Declaration in Response to Plaintiffs' Third Motion to Seal 41063-0023/LEGAL13277962.1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:05-cv-03649-JW Document 169 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I, M. Christopher Jhang, hereby declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in all of the courts of the State of California and this Court, and am an attorney with the law firm of Perkins Coie LLP, counsel for defendant Google Inc. ("Google") in this action. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), I submit this declaration in response to Plaintiffs' Third Motion To Seal Pursuant To Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) Portions Of Plaintiffs' Opposition Memorandum Due To Confidential Designations By Defendant Google Inc. ("Plaintiffs' Third Motion to Seal Document"), filed with this Court on May 21, 2007 (Document Nos. 140-142). I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below except as to those matters stated on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true. If called upon to testify, I could and would testify competently as to the matters set forth herein. BASIS FOR SEALING OF GOOGLE'S CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION 2. On or about March 2, 2007, Google and plaintiffs CLRB Hanson Industries, LLC, d/b/a Industrial Printing, and Howard Stern ("Plaintiffs") executed and filed with the Court their [Proposed] Stipulated Protective Order Regarding Confidential Information. On May 15, 2007, the Court executed the parties' Stipulated Protective Order (with amendments). A true and correct copy of the Court-executed Stipulated Protective Order is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. The Stipulated Protective Order provides two tiers of confidential designations. The first tier covers information designated "Confidential," which the Stipulated Protective Order generally describes as "those things that may be disclosed to the parties or their counsel for the purposes of the litigation, but which must be protected against disclosure to third parties." Stipulated Protective Order, 4. The second tier covers information designated "Confidential Trade Secret/Attorneys' Eyes Only," which the protective order generally describes as "those information or materials which are of a proprietary, business or technical nature that might reasonably be of value to a competitor or potential customer of the party or nonparty holding the proprietary rights thereto or might reasonably pose a commercial disadvantage to the producing party and must be protected from disclosure." Id. -2Jhang Declaration in Response to Plaintiffs' Third Motion to Seal CASE NO. 05-03649 41063-0023/LEGAL13277962.1 Case 5:05-cv-03649-JW Document 169 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. On April 26, 2007, I sent Plaintiffs' counsel, Lester Levy and Michele Raphael, a letter providing Google's tailored confidentiality designations for the deposition transcripts of Google employees Heather Wilburn, Shivakumar Venkataraman, and Michael Schulman. A true and correct copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 5. Google considers portions of Ms. Wilburn's deposition transcript to be "Confidential" because they discuss, describe, or refer to Google's internal training materials or internal guidelines used by Google's customer service representatives to respond to client inquiries. None of these materials are available to the public. Except for these "Confidential" portions, Ms. Wilburn's transcript has been designated by Google as non-confidential. 6. Google considers Mr. Venkataraman's deposition transcript to be "Confidential" in its entirety because Mr. Venkataraman is a Google software engineer who primarily discussed in his deposition Google's internal processes and information not available to the public. Mr. Venkataraman discussed Google's proprietary technology related to its AdWords program, the development of new technology, and the content of confidential documents Google produced to Plaintiffs. No portions of his transcript have been designated "Confidential Trade Secret/Attorneys' Eyes Only." 7. Google considers most of Mr. Schulman's deposition transcript to be "Confidential." Mr. Schulman is a Google software engineer who primarily discussed in his deposition Google's internal processes and information not available to the public. For example, Mr. Schulman discussed Google's proprietary technology related to its AdWords program, including the computer programming of the system for serving ads, and the content of confidential documents Google produced to Plaintiffs. Google also considers a small portion of Mr. Schulman's transcript to be "Confidential Trade Secret/Attorneys' Eyes Only" because this portion pertains to Google's highly sensitive algorithms used for the AdWords program. PLAINTIFFS' THIRD MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENT 8. On May 21, 2007, Plaintiffs filed their Third Motion to Seal Document, requesting to seal portions of Plaintiffs' Memorandum In Opposition To Defendant Google -3Jhang Declaration in Response to Plaintiffs' Third Motion to Seal CASE NO. 05-03649 41063-0023/LEGAL13277962.1 Case 5:05-cv-03649-JW Document 169 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Inc.'s Supplemental Brief in Support of Summary Judgment Motion ("Plaintiffs' Supplemental Opposition Memorandum") because it "incorporates, refers to, and/or cites documents" that Google has designated "Confidential." 9. The redactions (i.e., sealing as confidential documents) requested in Plaintiffs' Third Motion to Seal Document, in connection with Plaintiffs' Supplemental Opposition Memorandum, include information and testimony that Google has designated confidential. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States that each of the above statements is true and correct. Executed May 29, 2007, in San Francisco, California. PERKINS COIE LLP By: /S/ M. Christopher Jhang -4Jhang Declaration in Response to Plaintiffs' Third Motion to Seal CASE NO. 05-03649 41063-0023/LEGAL13277962.1

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?