In re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation

Filing 509

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting in part and denying in part (307) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part (335) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part (346) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part (394) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part (271) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part (283) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in case 5:11-cv-02509-LHK (lhklc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12

IN RE: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE
ANTITRUST LITIGATION

13
14
15
16

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

17

ALL ACTIONS

18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO
SEAL

19
Before the Court are numerous administrative motions to seal related to Plaintiffs’ Motion
20
for Class Certification and the March 1, 2013 Joint Discovery Status Report. See ECF Nos. 271,
21
283, 307, 335, 346, and 394 (“Sealing Motions”). For the reasons stated herein, the Court
22
GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the parties’ Sealing Motions.
23
I.

Legal Standard

24
Historically, courts have recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public records and
25
documents, including judicial records.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7
26
(1978). “Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in
27
28

favor of access’ is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,
1
Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th

2

Cir. 2003)).

3

In order to overcome this strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must

4

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

5

history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. at 1178-79 (internal quotation

6

marks and citations omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ . . . exist when such ‘court files

7

might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private

8

spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179

9

(citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). “The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more,

11

compel the court to seal its records.” Id. (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). §

12

However, the Ninth Circuit has “carved out an exception to the presumption of access to

13

judicial records . . . [that is] expressly limited to judicial records filed under seal when attached to a

14

non-dispositive motion.” In re Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litigation, 686

15

F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)

16

(emphasis in original); see also Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010)

17

(applying a “good cause” standard to all non-dispositive motions because such motions “are often

18

unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action”) (internal quotation marks

19

and citation omitted). Pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a trial court

20

has broad discretion to permit sealing of court documents for, inter alia, the protection of “a trade

21

secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

22

26(c)(1)(G). The Ninth Circuit has adopted the definition of “trade secrets” set forth in the

23

Restatement of Torts, holding that “[a] trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or

24

compilation of information which is used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to

25

obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it.” Clark v. Bunker, 453 F.2d 1006,

26

1009 (9th Cir. 1972) (quoting Restatement of Torts § 757, cmt. b). “Generally it relates to the

27

production of goods. . . . It may, however, relate to the sale of goods or to other operations in the

28

2
Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

business. . . .” Id. In addition, the Supreme Court has recognized that sealing may be justified to

2

prevent judicial documents from being used “as sources of business information that might harm a

3

litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.

4

Even under the “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c), however, a party must make a

5

“particularized showing” with respect to any individual document in order to justify sealing the

6

relevant document. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180; San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court,

7

N. Dist., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by

8

specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.” Beckman Indus., Inc.

9

v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
As Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification is a non-dispositive motion, 1 the Court finds

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

that the parties need only demonstrate “good cause” in order to support their requests to seal.

12

Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678 (applying “good cause” standard to all non-dispositive motions).

13

II.

Litigants’ Administrative Motions to Seal

14

A.

Renewed Motions to Seal Related to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification

15

On January 15, 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in part numerous administrative

16

motions to seal related to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. See ECF No. 273 (“Jan. 15,

17

2013 Order) (granting in part and denying in part sealing motions, see ECF Nos. 186, 211, 246,

18

252, and 254). For each motion and exhibit to a motion where the Court denied a request to seal

19

without prejudice, the Court afforded leave to file renewed motions to seal. See Jan. 15, 2013

20

Order at 26. In addition, the Court held that “if any portion of the exhibits that the parties wish to

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court recognizes that there may be circumstances in which a motion for class
certification is case dispositive. As the Eleventh Circuit observed in Prado v. Bush, 221 F.3d 1266,
(11th Cir. 2000), a motion for class certification might be dispositive if “a denial of class status
means that the stakes are too low for the named plaintiffs to continue the matter.” Id. at 1274.
Nevertheless, the Court applies a “good cause” standard here in accordance with the vast majority
of other courts within this circuit. See, e.g., In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name and Likeness
Licensing Litigation, No. 09-01967, 2012 WL 5395039 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2012); Vietnam
Veterans of America v. C.I.A., No. 09-0037, 2012 WL 1094360, *1-2 (N.D. Cal. March 29, 2012);
Buchanan v. Homeservices Lending LLC, No. 11-0922, 2012 WL 5505775, *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13,
2012); Davis v. Social Service Coordinators, Inc., No. 10-02372, 2012 WL 2376217 (E.D. Cal.
June 22, 2012); Rich v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. 06-03361, 2009 WL 2168688 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 20,
2009).
3
Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

file under seal becomes part of the public record, such as during the hearing on class certification,

2

the parties must file that portion publicly within seven days of public disclosure.” Id.

3
4

1.

Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Seal, ECF No. 283

Accordingly, Defendants now submit to the Court their renewed motion to seal documents

5

related to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. See ECF No. 283 (“Defendants’ Renewed

6

Motion to Seal”). Specifically, Defendants request that the Court grant their request to maintain

7

under seal portions of:

8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

(1) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, see ECF No. 187;
(2) Exhibit 14 to the Ann B. Shaver Declaration in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Class Certification, see ECF No. 188;
(3) Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification and
Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Strike the Report of Dr. Edward E. Leamer
(“Plaintiffs’ Reply”), see ECF No. 247; and
(4) Exhibits 4, 26, 27, and 29 to the Declaration of Dean M. Harvey in Support of
Plaintiffs’ Reply, see ECF No. 248.
In support of the renewed motion to seal, Defendants filed the following declarations:

13
14
15

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

Declaration of Donna Morris (Adobe), see ECF No. 284;
Declaration of Lisa K. Borgeson (Intuit), see ECF No. 285;
Declaration of Tina M. Evangelista (Intel), see ECF No. 287; and
Declaration of Frank Wagner (Google), see ECF No. 288.

16

Defendants maintain that all of these documents contain confidential and commercially

17

sensitive information about compensation and recruiting practices, strategies, and policies, and

18

person identifying information of employees or candidates. Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Seal

19

at 4. Defendants designated the foregoing information “Confidential” or “Attorney’s Eyes Only”

20

under the Protective Order, and have otherwise kept the sealed information confidential. Id.

21

Defendants contend that the public disclosure of the information would cause Defendants Adobe,

22

Intel, Intuit, and Google harm by giving third parties insights into confidential and sensitive aspects

23

of each of the Defendants’ strategies, competitive positions, and business operations, allowing

24

these third parties to potentially gain an unfair advantage in dealings with and against each of the

25

Defendants. Id. The declarations filed by representatives from each Defendant also explain why

26

each individual Defendant seeks to maintain the confidentiality of specific information contained in

27

particular exhibits and portions of the motion under seal, as well as the harm that would flow to the

28

4
Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

company from public disclosure. See, e.g., Morris Decl., ECF No. 284; Borgeson Decl., ECF No.

2

285; Evangelista Decl., ECF No. 287; Wagner Decl., ECF No. 288.

3

In light of Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Seal and corresponding declarations, the Court

4

makes the following rulings:

5

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (ECF No. 187)
Pages/Lines
Ruling
to be sealed
Page 17, lines DENIED.
13-16
Declaration of Ann B. Shaver in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification
(ECF No. 188)
Exhibits
Ruling
Exhibit 14
DENIED as to the redacted portions on pages bearing Bates numbers:
(1) ADOBE_002775
(2) ADOBE_002777
(3) ADOBE_002778
(4) ADOBE_002786

6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

GRANTED as to all other redacted portions identified by Defendants. See
Morris Decl., ¶ 4, ECF No. 284.
Plaintiffs’ Reply (ECF No. 247)
Pages/Lines
Ruling
to be sealed
Page 19, lines GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Borgeson
1-5
Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 285.
Declaration of Dean Harvey in Support of Plaintiffs’ Reply (ECF No. 248)
Exhibits
Ruling
Exhibit 4
DENIED as to the redacted portions referring to the total number of Google’s
staffing professionals. This had already been discussed at a previous court
hearing. See Tr. of August 8, 2013 Class Cert. Hr’g (“Tr.”) at 36:2; 68:4.

19
20

Exhibit 26

21
22

Exhibit 27

23

Exhibit 29

24
25

GRANTED as to the number of Google staffing professionals dedicated to
sourcing. See Wagner Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 288.
DENIED as to Step 14 – Internal Equity on Bates number 76579DOC005963.
GRANTED as to all other redacted portions identified by Defendants. See
Evangelista Decl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 287.
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See
Evangelista Decl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 287.
DENIED as to page 17, “Access and Calibrate Across Organization,” and page
18, “How Do I Think About Retention?’”
GRANTED as to all other redacted portions identified by Defendants. See
Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Seal, ECF No. 283.

26
27
28

5
Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL

1
2

2.

Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Seal Opposition, ECF No. 307

In addition, Defendants move to renew their requests to seal portions of documents related

3

to their Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. See ECF No. 307 (“Renewed

4

Motion to Seal Opposition”). Specifically, Defendants request to seal portions of the following

5

documents:
(1) Exhibits 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, and 27 to the Declaration of Christina
Brown in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class
Certification, see ECF No. 215; and
(2) Defendants’ Notice of Motion and Motion to Strike the Report of Dr. Edward E.
Leamer, see ECF No. 210.

6
7
8

In support of the renewed motion to seal, Defendants filed or referred to the following
9
declarations:
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)

Declaration of Frank Busch (Intel), see ECF No. 220;
Declaration of Frank Wagner (Google), see ECF No. 221;
Declaration of Donna Morris (Adobe), see ECF No. 284;
Declaration of Lisa K. Borgeson (Intuit), see ECF No. 285;
Declaration of Justina K. Sessions (Lucasfilm), see ECF No. 303;
Declaration of Anne M. Selin (Google), see ECF No. 305; and
Declaration of Christina Brown (Apple), see ECF No. 306.

Defendants maintain that all of these documents also contain confidential and commercially

15

sensitive information about compensation and recruiting practices, strategies, and policies, and

16

identifying information of employees or candidates. Renewed Motion to Seal Opposition at 5.

17

Defendants designated the foregoing information “Confidential” or “Attorney’s Eyes Only” under

18

the Protective Order, and have otherwise kept the sealed information confidential. Defendants

19

contend that the public disclosure of the information would cause Defendants Adobe, Apple, Intel,

20

Intuit, Google, and Lucasfilm harm by giving third parties insights into confidential and sensitive

21

aspects of each of the Defendants’ strategies, competitive positions, and business operations,

22

allowing these third parties to potentially gain an unfair advantage in dealings with and against

23

each of the Defendants. Id. The declarations filed by representatives from each Defendant also

24

explain why each individual Defendant seeks to maintain the confidentiality of specific information

25

contained in particular exhibits and portions of the motion under seal, as well as the harm that

26

would flow to the company from public disclosure. See, e.g., Busch Decl., ECF No. 220; Wagner

27
28

6
Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

Decl., ECF No. 221; Morris Decl., ECF No. 284; Borgeson Decl., ECF No. 285; Sessions Decl.,

2

ECF No. 303; Selin Decl., ECF No. 305; and Brown Decl., ECF No. 306.

3

In light of Defendants’ motion and corresponding declarations, the Court makes the

4

following rulings as to Defendants’ renewed motion to seal, ECF No. 307:

5

Declaration of Christina Brown in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion
for Class Certification (ECF No. 215)
Exhibits
Ruling
Donna Morris Declaration
Exhibit 14
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Morris
Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, ECF No. 284.

6
7
8

Exhibit 1
DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants in pages 7 and 13.
GRANTED as to all other redacted portions identified by Defendants. See
Morris Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, ECF No. 284.

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Exhibit 2
DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants in pages 3, 5 and 6.
GRANTED as to all other redacted portions identified by Defendants in Ex. 2.
See Morris Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, ECF No. 284.

12
13

Exhibit 3
DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants in page 3.
GRANTED as to all other redacted portions identified by Defendants. See
Morris Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, ECF No. 284.

14
15
16

Exhibit 4
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Morris
Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, ECF No. 284.

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

Exhibit 15
Exhibit 16

Exhibit 5
DENIED as to redacted portions identified by Defendants on pages bearing Bates
numbers:
(1) ADOBE_009300
(2) ADOBE_009302
(3) ADOBE_009305
(4) ADOBE_009306
(5) ADOBE_009307
GRANTED as to all other redacted portions identified by Defendants.
See Morris Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, ECF No. 284.
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Morris
Decl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 284.
Steven Burmeister Declaration
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown
Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 306.
Exhibit B
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown
Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 306.
7

Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL

1
2
3

Exhibit 19

4

Exhibit A
DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants on page 10.
GRANTED as to all other redacted portions identified by Defendants. See
Borgeson Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 285.

5
6
7

Exhibit B
DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants within the
following slides titled:
(1) “Opening and Welcome”
(2) “Performance Discussion”
(3) “Feedback for a Specific Situation”
(4) “Additional Tips for Giving Feedback”
(5) “Development Discussion”
(6) “Close the Conversation”
(7) “Tips on Delivering the Pay/Performance Message”
(8) “Performance and Pay Discussions for Impacted Employees”
(9) “Tips for Discussions with Impacted Employees”
(10) “Determining the IPI pool: Guiding Principles”
GRANTED as to all other redacted portions identified by Defendants. See
Borgeson Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 285.

8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15

Exhibit C
Powerpoint Slides
DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants within the
following slides titled:
(1) “Inputs to Performance Assessment and Development” (slide bears no
page number), and
(2) “Determining the BU/FG IPI Pool: Guiding Principles,” page 20;
GRANTED as to all other redacted portions identified by Defendants.
See Borgeson Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 285.

16
17
18
19
20

Same Powerpoint Slides But With Annotated Comments
DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants within the
following slides titled:
(1) “Inputs to Performance Assessment and Development” (slide bears no
page number). However, the Court GRANTS the renewed motion to seal
as to the annotations below this powerpoint slide;
(2) “Determining the BU/FG IPI Pool: Guiding Principles” with annotations
on page 20;
GRANTED as to all other redacted portions identified by Defendants.
See Borgeson Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 285.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Exhibit C
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants in Ex. C.
See Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 306.
Mason Stubblefield Declaration
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Borgeson
Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 285.

Exhibit 20

Exhibit D
GRANTED as to all other redacted portions identified by Defendants.
See Borgeson Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 285.
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants in the Chris
Galy Declaration. See Borgeson Decl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 285.
8

Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

Exhibit 21

2

Exhibit A
DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants on page bearing
Bates number: GOOG-HIGH TECH-00255218.000003.
GRANTED as to all other redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin
Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 305.

3
4
5

Exhibit B
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl.
¶ 2, ECF No. 305.

6
7
8
Exhibit 22

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

Exhibit 25

11
12
13
14
15

Exhibit 26

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

Frank Wagner Declaration
DENIED as to page 1, lines 11-14. GRANTED as to all other redacted portions
identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 305.

Exhibit 27
.

Exhibit C
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants.
See Selin Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 305.
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants in the Michelle
Maupin Declaration, Ex. B, and Ex. C. See Sessions Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 303.
DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants on pages bearing
Bates numbers:
(1) GOOG-HIGH TECH-00038367
(2) GOOG-HIGH TECH-00038368
(3) GOOG-HIGH TECH-00038372
(4) GOOG-HIGH TECH-00038382
(5) GOOG-HIGH TECH-00038386
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl.
¶ 3, ECF No. 305.
DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants on pages bearing
Bates numbers:
(1) 76597DOC000068
(2) 76597DOC000068_000002
(3) 76597DOC000068_000003
(4) 76597DOC000068_000004
(5) 76597DOC000068_000006
(6) 76597DOC000068_000007
(7) 76597DOC000068_000008
(8) 76597DOC000068_000009
(9) 76597DOC000068_000011
GRANTED as to all other redacted portions identified by Defendants.
See Busch Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 220.
DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants on pages bearing
Bates numbers:
(1) 40012DOC000638
(2) 40012DOC000639
(3) 40012DOC000640
(4) 40012DOC000642
(5) 40012DOC000645
(6) 40012DOC000654
(7) 40012DOC000655
(8) 40012DOC000658
(9) 40012DOC000663
(10) 40012DOC000664
9

Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL

(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

GRANTED as to all other redacted portions identified by Defendants.
See Busch Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 220.
Defendants’ Motion to Strike the Report of Dr. Edward E. Leamer (ECF No. 210)
Pages/Lines
Ruling
Page 19, lines
GRANTED. See Wagner Decl., ECF No. 221; See Selin Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 305.
13-17
Footnote 16
DENIED. See Wagner Decl., ECF No. 221; See Selin Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 305.
Figure on Page GRANTED. See Wagner Decl., ECF No. 221; See Selin Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 305.
20
3.

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14

40012DOC000670
40012DOC000671
40012DOC000675
40012DOC000676
40012DOC000677

Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Seal Expert Reports, ECF No. 394

Further, in its April 8, 2013 Case Management Order, ECF No. 388, the Court directed the
parties to file renewed motions to seal the expert reports of Dr. Leamer and Dr. Murphy consistent
with the good cause standard for sealing as set forth in the Court’s Jan. 15, 2013 Sealing Order.
Accordingly, Defendants jointly move to renew their requests to seal portions of the following
documents, ECF No. 394 (“Renewed Motion to Seal Expert Reports”):

19

Expert Report of Edward E. Leamer, ECF No. 190;
Expert Report of Professor Kevin M. Murphy, ECF No. 230;
Reply Expert Report of Edward E. Leamer, ECF No. 249;
Defendants’ Joint Administrative Motion for Leave to Supplement the Record, ECF
No. 263, and Supplemental Declaration of Kevin Murphy, ECF No. 263-3; and
(5) Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Joint Administrative Motion for Leave to
Supplement the Record, ECF No. 270, and Declaration of Dr. Leamer, ECF No.
270-1.

20

In addition, Defendants filed corresponding declarations in support of the Renewed Motion

15
16
17
18

21
22
23
24
25

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

to Seal Expert Reports:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)

Declaration of Frank Busch (Intel), ECF No. 395;
Declaration of Anne M. Selin (Google), ECF No. 396;
Declaration of Catherine T. Zeng (Intuit), ECF No. 397;
Declaration of Christina Brown (Apple), ECF No. 398;
Declaration of Lin W. Kahn (Adobe), ECF No. 399;
Declaration of James M. Kennedy (Pixar), ECF No. 400; and
Declaration of Justina Sessions (Lucasfilm), ECF No. 401.

26
27
28

As with their other motions, Defendants maintain that all of these documents also contain
confidential and commercially sensitive information about compensation and recruiting practices,
10
Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

strategies, and policies, and identifying information of employees or candidates. Renewed Motion

2

to Seal Expert Reports at 3. Defendants designated the foregoing information “Confidential” or

3

“Attorney’s Eyes Only” under the Protective Order, and have otherwise kept the sealed information

4

confidential. Id. Defendants contend that the public disclosure of the information would cause

5

Defendants harm by giving third parties insights into confidential and sensitive aspects of each of

6

the Defendants’ strategies, competitive positions, and business operations, allowing these third

7

parties to potentially gain an unfair advantage in dealings with and against each of the Defendants.

8

Id.

9

In light of Defendants’ motion and corresponding declarations, the Court makes the

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

following rulings as to Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Seal, ECF No. 394:

11

Expert Report of Edward E. Leamer (ECF No. 190)
Paragraphs
Ruling
Paragraph 59
DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶
4, ECF No. 396.
Paragraph 99
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown
Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398.
Paragraph 107 DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶
4, ECF No. 396. Google’s firm-wide increase in compensation of 10% and a
$1,000 bonus to all employees is public information.
Paragraph 108 DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶
4, ECF No. 396.
Paragraph 109 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl.
¶ 4, ECF No. 396.
Paragraph 111 DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶
4, ECF No. 396. The Court previously erroneously sealed this information.
Paragraph 115 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl.
¶ 4, ECF No. 396.
Paragraph 116 DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶
4, ECF No. 396. The Court previously erroneously sealed this information.
Paragraph 117 DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶
4, ECF No. 396. The Court previously erroneously sealed this information.
Paragraph 119 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl.
¶ 4, ECF No. 396.
Paragraph 123 DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Busch Decl. ¶
8, ECF No. 395.
Paragraph 133 GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown
Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398.
Figures
Ruling
Figure 3
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kennedy
Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 400; Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF
No. 396; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395; Sessions Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 401.
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kennedy
Figure 4
Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 400; Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF
11

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

Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

No. 396; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395; Sessions Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 401.
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown
Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398.
Figure 10
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown
Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF
No. 395.
Figure 15
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown
Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398.
Figure 16
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl.
¶ 4, ECF No. 396.
Figure 17
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown
Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398.
Footnotes
Ruling
Footnote 65
DENIED as to the number of recruiters. GRANTED as to the rate of hires. See
Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396.
Footnote 101
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl.
¶ 4, ECF No. 396.
Footnote 103
DENIED. See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396.
Footnote 112
DENIED. See Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395.
Footnote 127
DENIED. See Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395.
Footnote 129
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl.
¶ 4, ECF No. 396.
Footnote 135
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl.
¶ 4, ECF No. 396.
Footnote 138
DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶
4, ECF No. 396.
Footnote 139
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl.
¶ 4, ECF No. 396.
Footnote 155
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl.
¶ 4, ECF No. 396.
Footnote 160
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Busch
Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395.
Footnote 164
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown
Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398.
Expert Report of Professor Kevin M. Murphy (ECF No. 230)
Paragraphs
Ruling
Paragraph 20
GRANTED as to the first redacted sentence. DENIED as to the second redacted
sentence. See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396.
Paragraph 35
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl.
¶ 4, ECF No. 396.
Paragraph 43
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl.
¶ 4, ECF No. 396.
Paragraphs 45
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl.
¶ 4, ECF No. 396.
Paragraphs 46
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown
Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396.
Paragraph 76
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown
Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398
Paragraphs 78
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl.
¶ 4, ECF No. 396.
Paragraphs 79
DENIED. See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396.
Paragraph 95
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl.
¶ 4, ECF No. 396.
Figure 9

12
Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

Paragraph 146

2

Footnotes
Footnote 20

3

Footnote 24

4
5

Footnote 92

6

Footnote 104
Footnote 107

7

Footnote 114

8

Footnote 186

9

Exhibits
Exhibit 1A

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Exhibit 1B
Exhibit 2A

12
13

Exhibit 2B

14
15

Exhibit 3

16
17
18

Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6

19
20
21

Exhibit 7A
Exhibit 7B

22
23
24

Exhibit 8A
Exhibit 8B

25
26

Exhibit 9A

27

Exhibit 9B

28

GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants.
¶ 4, ECF No. 396.
Ruling
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants.
¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395.
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants.
¶ 4, ECF No. 396.
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants.
Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398.
DENIED. See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396.
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants.
¶ 4,ECF No. 396.
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants.
¶ 4, ECF No. 396.
DENIED. See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396.

See Selin Decl.
See Selin Decl.
See Selin Decl.
See Brown
See Selin Decl.
See Selin Decl.

Ruling
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Busch
Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395.
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Busch
Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395.
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kennedy
Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 400; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395; Sessions Decl. ¶ 4, ECF
No. 401.
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kennedy
Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 400; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395; Sessions Decl. ¶ 4, ECF
No. 401.
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kennedy
Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 400; Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Kahn Decl. ¶ 9, ECF
No. 399; Zeng Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 397; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Busch
Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395.
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kennedy
Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 400; Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF
No. 396; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395; Sessions Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 401.
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown
Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No.
395.
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown
Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No.
395.
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown
Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No.
395.
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kennedy
Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 400; Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF
No. 396; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395; Sessions Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 401.
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kennedy
Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 400; Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF
No. 396; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395; Sessions Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 401.
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown
Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398.
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown
Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396.
13

Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

Exhibit 10

2

Exhibit 11A

3

Exhibit 11B

4

Exhibit 15B

5

Exhibit 19

6
7

Appendices
Appendix 1A

8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Appendix 1B
Appendix 1C

11
12
13

Appendix 1D
Appendix 2A

14
15
16

Appendix 2B
Appendix 2C

17
18
19

Appendix 2D
Appendix 3A

20
21

Appendix 3B

22
Appendix 4A
23
24
Appendix 4B
25
26
Appendix 4C
27
28

GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kennedy
Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 400; Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF
No. 396; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395; Sessions Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 401.
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown
Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398.
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown
Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396.
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl.
¶ 4, ECF No. 396.
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kennedy
Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 400; Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Sessions Decl. ¶ 4, ECF
No. 401.
Ruling
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kahn Decl.
¶ 9, ECF No. 399; Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Zeng Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 397;
Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395.
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kahn Decl.
¶ 9, ECF No. 399; Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Zeng Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 397;
Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Busch Decl., ECF No. 395.
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kahn Decl.
¶ 9, ECF No. 399; Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Zeng Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 397;
Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395.
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kahn Decl.
¶ 9, ECF No. 399; Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Zeng Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 397;
Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395.
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kahn Decl.
¶ 9, ECF No. 399; See Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; See Zeng Decl. ¶ 4, ECF
No. 397; See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; See Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kahn Decl.
¶ 9, ECF No. 399; Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Zeng Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 397;
Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395.
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kahn Decl.
¶ 9, ECF No. 399; Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Zeng Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 397;
Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395.
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kahn Decl.
¶ 9, ECF No. 399; Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Zeng Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 397;
Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395.
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kennedy
Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 400; Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF
No. 396; Sessions Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 401.
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kennedy
Decl. ¶ 4; Brown Decl., ECF No. 398; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Sessions
Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 401.
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kennedy
Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 400; Kahn Decl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 399; Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF
No. 398; Zeng Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 397; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Sessions
Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 401.
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kennedy
Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 400; See Kahn Decl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 399; Brown Decl. ¶ 3,
ECF No. 398; Zeng Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 397; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396;
Sessions Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 401.
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kennedy
Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 400; Kahn Decl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 399; Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF
No. 398; Zeng Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 397; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Sessions
14

Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 401.
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kennedy
Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 400; Kahn Decl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 399; Brown Decl. ¶ 3, ECF
No. 398; Zeng Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 397; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Sessions
Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 401.
Appendix 5A
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kahn Decl.
¶ 9, ECF No. 399.
Appendix 5B
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Busch
Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395.
Appendix 5C
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Zeng Decl.
¶ 4, ECF No. 397.
Appendix 5D
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Sessions
Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 401.
Appendix 5E
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kennedy
Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 400.
Appendix 6A
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kahn Decl.
¶ 9, ECF No. 399.
Appendix 6B
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Busch
Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395.
Appendix 6C
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Zeng Decl.
¶ 4, ECF No. 397.
Appendix 6D
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Sessions
Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 401.
Appendix 6E
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Kennedy
Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 400.
Appendix 7B
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Busch
Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395.
Reply Expert Report of Edward E. Leamer (ECF No. 249)
Title
Ruling
Title III(C) on DENIED as to the redacted portion identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶
pages i and 23 4, ECF No. 396.
Paragraphs
Ruling
Paragraph 7
DENIED as to the redacted portion identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶
4, ECF No. 396.
Paragraph 51
DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶
4, ECF No. 396.
Paragraph 52
DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶
4, ECF No. 396.
Paragraph 53
GRANTED as to the number and percentage of Google employees hired by a
competitor. DENIED as to all other redacted portions identified by Defendants.
See Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396.
Paragraph 54
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl.
¶ 4, ECF No. 396.
Paragraph 62
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Busch
Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395.
Paragraph 63
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Busch
Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395
Paragraph 64
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown
Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398.
Figures
Ruling
Figure 1
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown
Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No.
395.
Appendix 4D

15
Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Figure 6

GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown
Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398.
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown
Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 398; Selin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 396.

Figure 7
Footnotes
Footnote 51

Ruling
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Busch
Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 395.
Footnote 67
DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl. ¶
4, ECF No. 396.
Footnote 69
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Selin Decl.
¶ 4, ECF No. 396.
Defendants’ Joint Administrative Motion for Leave to Supplement the Record (ECF No. 263)
Pages/Lines
Ruling
Page 2, lines 1- GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Busch
8
Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 265.
Supplemental Declaration of Kevin Murphy (ECF No. 263-3)
Pages/Lines
Ruling
and Exhibits
Page 2, lines 9- GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown
15
Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 266; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 265.
Exhibit A
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown
Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 266; Busch Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 265.
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Joint Administrative Motion for Leave to Supplement
the Record (ECF No. 270)
Pages/Lines
Ruling
Page 5, lines 2- GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Brown
11
Decl., ECF No. 398; Busch Decl., ECF No. 395.
Declaration of Dr. Leamer in Opposition to Defendants’ Administrative Motion (ECF No.
270-1)
Exhibits
Ruling
Exhibit A
GRANTED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Busch
Decl., ECF No. 395.
4.

Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to Seal Portions of Plaintiffs’
Opposition to Defendants’ Joint Administrative Motion to Supplement
the Record and the Declaration of Dr. Edward E. Leamer in Opposition
to Defendants’ Administrative Motion, ECF No. 271

On January 14, 2013, Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to seal portions of Plaintiffs’
Opposition to Defendants’ Joint Administrative Motion to Supplement the Record, ECF No. 270,
and the Declaration of Dr. Edward E. Leamer in Opposition to Defendants’ Administrative Motion,
ECF No. 270-1. See ECF No. 271. Pursuant to Local Rules 79-5(d), Plaintiffs moved to seal the
information because Defendants designated the information as “Confidential” or “Attorneys-Eyes
Only” under the Protective Order. See id. Defendants then filed a joint response in support of
Plaintiffs’ administrative motion. See ECF No. 292. Defendants also filed corresponding
declarations in support of Plaintiffs’ sealing request. See ECF Nos. 294 and 300. Defendants later
16
Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

withdrew their joint response, ECF No. 292, pursuant to the Court’s order, ECF No. 388.

2

Defendants then filed a renewed motion to seal portions of certain documents, including Plaintiffs’

3

Opposition to Defendants’ Joint Administration Motion for Leave to Supplement the Record, ECF

4

No. 270, and Declaration of Dr. Leamer, ECF No. 270-1. See ECF No. 394. As stated above, the

5

Court GRANTS the redacted portions identified by Defendants in Plaintiffs’ Opposition to

6

Defendants’ Joint Administrative Motion for Leave to Supplement the Record and Declaration of

7

Dr. Leamer. See supra p. 16. The Court DENIES all of the other redacted portions identified by

8

Plaintiffs because Defendants do not seek to seal such information. See ECF Nos. 271 and 394.

9

Thus, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to Seal,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

ECF No. 271.

11

B.

12

Motions to Seal Exhibit A to the March 1, 2013 Joint Discovery Status Report,
ECF Nos. 335 and 346

On March 2, 2013, Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to seal Exhibit A to the March
13
1, 2013 Joint Discovery Status Report, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(d). ECF No. 335.
14
Exhibit A consists of transcript excerpts from the depositions of: (1) Shona Brown on January 30,
15
2013, and (2) Alan Eustace on February 27, 2013. Defendant Google Inc. (“Google”) designated
16
this information “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential-Attorney’s Eyes Only.” See ECF No. 34617
1.
18
On March 8, 2013, Google filed a response in support of Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion
19
to Seal, seeking to seal select portions of Exhibit A to the March 1, 2013 Joint Discovery Status
20
Report. ECF No. 346. Google also filed a declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ motion, Declaration
21
of Eric B. Evans in Support of Defendant Google Inc.’s response in Support of Plaintiffs’
22
Administrative Motion to Seal Exhibit A to the March 1, 2013 Joint Discovery Status Report. ECF
23
No. 346-1. According to Google, select portions of these transcript excerpts contain highly
24
confidential information, and Google would suffer competitive harm if such excerpts were made
25
public. Id. ¶ 2. Specifically, these excerpts quote from or are related to documents that Google has
26
designated as Highly Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes’ only because those documents contain
27
28

discussions concerning (1) the development and implementation of Google’s recruiting strategies
17
Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

and policies; (2) discussions about competitors’ recruiting strategies and policies; (3) identification

2

of candidates for employment; (4) Google’s competitively sensitive relations with its business

3

partners; or (5) features of Google’s compensation programs. Id.

4

In light of Plaintiffs’ motion, Google’s response in support of Plaintiffs’ motion, and

5

Google’s corresponding declaration, the Court makes the following rulings:

6

10

Exhibit A to the March 1, 2013 Joint Discovery Status Report (ECF No. 336-1)
Deposition
Ruling
Deposition of
DENIED as to the redacted portions identified by Defendants. See Evans Decl.
Shona Brown on ¶ 2, ECF No. 346-1.
January 30, 2013
Deposition of
GRANTED as to page 161 (bottom center of page), lines 3-5, 9-11, 24-25.
Alan Eustace on DENIED as to all other redacted portions identified by Defendants and
February 27,
Plaintiffs. See Evans Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 346-1; Plaintiffs’ Administrative
2013
Motion to Seal, ECF No. 335.

11

Plaintiffs also sought to seal other information in their administrative motion to seal. See ECF No.

12

335. However, Defendants do not seek to seal such information. See ECF No. 346. The Court,

13

therefore, DENIES all other proposed redactions identified by Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Court

14

GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to Seal, ECF No. 335.

15

III.

7
8

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

16

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-IN-PART with

17

prejudice the parties’ Sealing Motions as set forth above. In addition, if any portion of the exhibits

18

that the parties wish to file under seal becomes part of the public record, such as during a court

19

proceeding, the parties must file that portion publicly within seven days of public disclosure.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

Dated: September 30, 2013

________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

18
Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL