Williamson v. Google Inc.

Filing 340

OMNIBUS ORDER RE SEALING REQUESTS. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 10/26/2018. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/26/2018)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

SAN JOSE DIVISION

5
6

RICHARD A. WILLIAMSON,
Plaintiff,

7

OMNIBUS ORDER RE SEALING
REQUESTS

v.

8
9

Case No. 15-cv-00966-BLF

GOOGLE LLC,

[Re: ECF 296, 300, 304, 307, 317, 320]

Defendant.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
Before the Court are the parties’ respective administrative motions to file under seal

12
13

portions of Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and exhibits, the parties’ opposition briefs

14

and exhibits, and the parties’ reply briefs and exhibits. ECF 296, 300, 304, 307, 317, 320. For the

15

reasons stated below, Defendant’s motions are GRANTED; and Plaintiff’s motions are

16

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

17
18

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records

19

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of

20

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435

21

U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong

22

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

23

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to

24

motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden

25

of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of

26

access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d

27

1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79.

28

However, “while protecting the public’s interest in access to the courts, we must remain

1

mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm

2

their competitive interest.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228–29 (Fed.

3

Cir. 2013). Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the

4

merits of a case” therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto

5

Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need

6

for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are

7

often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving

8

to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of

9

Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This
standard requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,

12

1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by

13

specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co.,

14

966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). A protective order sealing the documents during discovery

15

may reflect the court’s previous determination that good cause exists to keep the documents

16

sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80, but a blanket protective order that allows the parties

17

to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine

18

whether each particular document should remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference

19

to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as

20

confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”).

21

In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal

22

documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R.

23

79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is

24

“sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under

25

the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and

26

must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the

27

submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable

28

material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be
2

1

sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unredacted version of the document” that indicates “by

2

highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the

3

redacted version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative

4

Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection

5

79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

6

II.

DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed the parties’ sealing motions and the declarations of the designating

7
8

parties submitted in support thereof. The Court finds that the parties have articulated compelling

9

reasons to seal certain portions of the submitted documents. The proposed redactions are
generally narrowly tailored. The Court’s rulings on the sealing requests are set forth in the tables

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

below.

12

A.

ECF 296 and ECF 300 (Plaintiff’s Motion as to Plaintiff’s MSJ and Exhibits)
Document to be Sealed:
Result
Reasoning

13

ECF
No.

14

296-4 Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment

16
17

The proposed redacted portions
contain highly confidential
information relating to the
design and operation of
Google’s ad display architecture
and infrastructure. Mehta Decl.
¶ 6, ECF 303. Disclosure of
such information would provide
an unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 6.

DENIED as to
remainder.

15

GRANTED as to
proposed redacted
portions submitted by
Google, the
designating party (ECF
303-1).

The remainder is denied because
Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 6.

GRANTED as to
proposed redacted
portions submitted by
Google, the
designating party (ECF
303-2).

The proposed redacted portions
contain highly confidential
information relating to the
design and operation of
Google’s ad display architecture
and infrastructure. Mehta Decl.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

300-31 Excerpts from Report of
Plaintiff’s Expert, Dr. Kevin
C. Almeroth

26
27
28

1

This document has replaced ECF 296-5. See Plaintiff’s Motion at ECF 300.
3

ECF
No.

1

Document to be Sealed:

Result

2

¶ 7, ECF 303. Disclosure of
such information would provide
an unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 7.

3
4
5

DENIED as to
remainder.

The remainder is denied because
Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 7.

GRANTED as to
proposed redacted
portions submitted by
Google, the
designating party (ECF
303-3).

The proposed redacted portions
contain highly confidential
information relating to the
design and operation of
Google’s ad display architecture
and infrastructure. Mehta Decl.
¶ 8, ECF 303. Disclosure of
such information would provide
an unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 8.

DENIED as to
remainder.

The remainder is denied because
Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 8.

GRANTED as to
proposed redacted
portions submitted by
Google, the
designating party (ECF
303-4).

The proposed redacted portions
contain highly confidential
information relating to the
design and operation of
Google’s ad display architecture
and infrastructure. Mehta Decl.
¶ 9, ECF 303. Disclosure of
such information would provide
an unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 9.

DENIED as to
remainder.

6

The remainder is denied because
Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be

7
8
9

300-42 Appendix F to the Report of
Plaintiff’s Expert,
Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth

10
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Reasoning

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

300-53 Appendix G to the Report of
Plaintiff’s Expert,
Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
3

This document has replaced ECF 296-6. See Plaintiff’s Motion at ECF 300.
This document has replaced ECF 296-7. See Plaintiff’s Motion at ECF 300.
4

ECF
No.

1

Document to be Sealed:

Result

2
3
4
5
6

sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 9.
4

300-6 Excerpts from Rebuttal
Report of Plaintiff’s Expert,
Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth,
Concerning Validity of U.S.
Patent Nos. 6,014,698 and
6,286,045

GRANTED as to
proposed redacted
portions submitted by
Google, the
designating party (ECF
303-5).

The proposed redacted portions
contain highly confidential
information relating to the
design and operation of
Google’s ad display architecture
and infrastructure. Mehta Decl.
¶ 10, ECF 303. Disclosure of
such information would provide
an unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 10.

DENIED as to
remainder.

The remainder is denied because
Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 10.

296-9 Ex. 2 to the Rebuttal Report
of Plaintiff’s Expert,
Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth,
Concerning Validity of U.S.
Patent Nos. 6,014,698 and
6,286,045

DENIED.

Google, the designating party,
states that it does not seek to
seal this document. Mehta Decl.
¶ 11.

296- Excerpts from the Rebuttal
10 Expert Report of Michael J.
Freedman

GRANTED as to
proposed redacted
portions submitted by
Google, the
designating party (ECF
303-6).

The proposed redacted portions
contain highly confidential
information relating to the
design and operation of
Google’s ad display architecture
and infrastructure. Mehta Decl.
¶ 12, ECF 303. Disclosure of
such information would provide
an unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 12.

DENIED as to
remainder.

The remainder is denied because
Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 12.

7
8
9
10
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Reasoning

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
296- Excerpts from the Deposition GRANTED as to
11 of Michael Freedman
proposed redacted

26

The proposed redacted portions
contain highly confidential

27
28

4

This document has replaced ECF 296-8. See Plaintiff’s Motion at ECF 300.
5

1
2
3
4

ECF
No.

Document to be Sealed:

Result

Reasoning

portions submitted by
Google, the
designating party (ECF
303-7).

information relating to the
design and operation of
Google’s ad display architecture
and infrastructure. Mehta Decl.
¶ 13, ECF 303. Disclosure of
such information would provide
an unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 13.

DENIED as to
remainder.

The remainder is denied because
Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 13.

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

296- Excerpts from the Deposition GRANTED as to
12 of David Christian
proposed redacted
portions submitted by
Google, the
designating party (ECF
303-8).

14
15
16
17

DENIED as to
remainder.

18
19
20
21
22
23

296- Excerpts from the Deposition GRANTED as to
13 of Nathan Lucash
proposed redacted
portions submitted by
Google, the
designating party (ECF
303-9).

24
25
26
27

DENIED as to
remainder.

28
6

The proposed redacted portions
contain highly confidential
information relating to the
design and operation of
Google’s ad display architecture
and infrastructure. Mehta Decl.
¶ 14, ECF 303. Disclosure of
such information would provide
an unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 14.
The remainder is denied because
Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 14.
The proposed redacted portions
contain highly confidential
information relating to the
design and operation of
Google’s ad display architecture
and infrastructure. Mehta Decl.
¶ 15, ECF 303. Disclosure of
such information would provide
an unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 15.
The remainder is denied because
Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be

1

ECF
No.

Document to be Sealed:

Result

2
3
4
5
6

sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 15.
296- Excerpts from the Deposition GRANTED as to
14 of Peter Alexander
proposed redacted
portions submitted by
Google, the
designating party (ECF
303-10).

7
8
9

The remainder is denied because
Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 16.

GRANTED as to
proposed redacted
portions submitted by
Google, the
designating party (ECF
303-11).

The proposed redacted portions
contain highly confidential
information relating to the
design and operation of
Google’s ad display architecture
and infrastructure. Mehta Decl.
¶ 17, ECF 303. Disclosure of
such information would provide
an unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 17.

DENIED as to
remainder.

The remainder is denied because
Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 17.

296- Document produced by
16 Google bearing Bates
numbers
GOOG_WAH_00109209GOOG_WAH_00109211

DENIED.

Google, the designating party,
states that it does not seek to
seal this document. Mehta Decl.
¶ 18.

296- Document produced by
17 Google bearing Bates
numbers
GOOG_WAH_00188557GOOG_WAH_00188568

GRANTED.

The proposed redacted portions
contain highly confidential
information relating to the
design and operation of
Google’s ad display architecture
and infrastructure. Mehta Decl.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
296- Excerpts from Expert Report
15 of Peter Alexander

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

The proposed redacted portions
contain highly confidential
information relating to the
design and operation of
Google’s ad display architecture
and infrastructure. Mehta Decl.
¶ 16, ECF 303. Disclosure of
such information would provide
an unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 16.

DENIED as to
remainder.

10

13

Reasoning

28
7

1

ECF
No.

Document to be Sealed:

Result

2

¶ 19, ECF 303. Disclosure of
such information would provide
an unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 19.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

296- Document produced by
GRANTED.
18 Google bearing Bates
numbers
GOOG_WAH_SC_10000720,
GOOG_WAH_SC_10000783,
GOOG_WAH_SC_10000789,
and
GOOG_WAH_SC_10000799

The proposed redacted portions
contain highly confidential
information relating to the
design and operation of
Google’s ad display architecture
and infrastructure. Mehta Decl.
¶ 20, ECF 303. Disclosure of
such information would provide
an unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 20.

296- Excerpts from the Deposition GRANTED.
19 of Phillip Lindsay

The proposed redacted portions
contain highly confidential
information relating to the
design and operation of
Google’s ad display architecture
and infrastructure. Mehta Decl.
¶ 21, ECF 303. Disclosure of
such information would provide
an unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 21.

296- Document produced by
20 Google bearing Bates
numbers
GOOG_WAH_00050818GOOG_WAH_00050826

DENIED.

Google, the designating party,
states that it does not seek to
seal this document. Mehta Decl.
¶ 22.

296- Document produced by
21 Google bearing Bates
numbers
GOOG_WAH_00052835GOOG_WAH_00052842

DENIED.

Google, the designating party,
states that it does not seek to
seal this document. Mehta Decl.
¶ 23.

296- Document produced by
22 Google bearing Bates
numbers
GOOG_WAH_00049250GOOG_WAH_00049257

DENIED.

Google, the designating party,
states that it does not seek to
seal this document. Mehta Decl.
¶ 24.

296- Document produced by
23 Google bearing Bates
numbers

DENIED.

Google, the designating party,
states that it does not seek to
seal this document. Mehta Decl.
¶ 25.

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

Reasoning

28
8

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
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

ECF
No.

Document to be Sealed:

Result

GOOG_WAH_00049021GOOG_WAH_00049066
296- Document produced by
24 Google bearing Bates
numbers
GOOG_WAH_00056617GOOG_WAH_00056662

DENIED.

Google, the designating party,
states that it does not seek to
seal this document. Mehta Decl.
¶ 26.

296- Document produced by
25 Google bearing Bates
numbers
GOOG_WAH_00050368 –
GOOG_WAH_00050378

DENIED.

Google, the designating party,
states that it does not seek to
seal this document. Mehta Decl.
¶ 27.

296- Document produced by
26 Google bearing Bates
numbers
GOOG_WAH_00049258GOOG_WAH_00049265

DENIED.

Google, the designating party,
states that it does not seek to
seal this document. Mehta Decl.
¶ 28.

296- Document produced by
27 Google bearing Bates
numbers
GOOG_WAH_00055251GOOG_WAH_00055260

DENIED.

Google, the designating party,
states that it does not seek to
seal this document. Mehta Decl.
¶ 29.

296- Document produced by
28 Google bearing Bates
numbers
GOOG_WAH_00050193GOOG_WAH_00050207

DENIED.

Google, the designating party,
states that it does not seek to
seal this document. Mehta Decl.
¶ 30.

296- Document produced by
29 Google bearing Bates
numbers
GOOG_WAH_00048837GOOG_WAH_00048854

DENIED.

Google, the designating party,
states that it does not seek to
seal this document. Mehta Decl.
¶ 31.

296- Excerpts from the Deposition GRANTED as to
30 Allen Merriman
proposed redacted
portions submitted by
Google, the
designating party (ECF
303-12).

26
27
28

Reasoning

DENIED as to
remainder.
9

The proposed redacted portions
contain highly confidential
information relating to Google’s
source code. Mehta Decl. ¶ 32,
ECF 303. Disclosure of such
information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 32.
The remainder is denied because

1

ECF
No.

Document to be Sealed:

Result

2

Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 32.

3
4
5

296- Excerpts from the Deposition DENIED.
31 of Mehdi Daoudi

Google, the designating party,
states that it does not seek to
seal this document. Mehta Decl.
¶ 33.

296- Document entitled
32 “DoubleClick, Inc.,
Confidential Business
Plan”

Google, the designating party,
states that it does not seek to
seal this document. Mehta Decl.
¶ 34.

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

DENIED.

296- Excerpts from Exhibit E from GRANTED as to
33 the Expert Report of
proposed redacted
Peter Alexander
portions submitted by
Google, the
designating party (ECF
303-13).

14
15

The remainder is denied because
Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 35.

296- Document produced by
34 Google bearing Bates
numbers
GOOG_WAH_00070764GOOG_WAH_00070844

DENIED.

Google, the designating party,
states that it does not seek to
seal this document. Mehta Decl.
¶ 36.

296- Document produced by
35 Google bearing Bates
numbers
GOOG_WAH_00138665GOOG_WAH_00138666

DENIED.

Google, the designating party,
states that it does not seek to
seal this document. Mehta Decl.
¶ 37.

296- Excerpts from the Deposition DENIED.
36 of Tom Shields

Google, the designating party,
states that it does not seek to
seal this document. Mehta Decl.
¶ 38.

17

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

The proposed redacted portions
contain highly confidential
information relating to Google’s
source code. Mehta Decl. ¶ 35,
ECF 303. Disclosure of such
information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 35.

DENIED as to
remainder.

16

18

Reasoning

26
27
28
10

1

ECF
No.

2

296- Exhibit E to Rebuttal Expert
37 Report of Michael J.
Freedman

DENIED.

Google, the designating party,
states that it does not seek to
seal this document. Mehta Decl.
¶ 39.

296- Excerpts from the Expert
38 Report of Laura B. Stamm

DENIED.

Google, the designating party,
states that it does not seek to
seal this document. Mehta Decl.
¶ 40.

296- Document produced by
DENIED.
39 Google bearing Bates number
GOOG_WAH_00075824

Google, the designating party,
states that it does not seek to
seal this document. Mehta Decl.
¶ 41.

3

Document to be Sealed:

Result

4
5
6
7
8
9

Reasoning

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

B. ECF 304 (Plaintiff’s Motion as to Plaintiff’s Opposition and Exhibits)
ECF Document to be Sealed:
Result
Reasoning
No.
304-4

Plaintiff’s Opposition and
Cross-Motion to
Defendant Google LLC’s
Motion for Summary
Judgment

15
16

The proposed redacted portions
contain highly confidential
information relating to Google’s
ad display architecture and
infrastructure. Mehta Decl. ¶ 6,
ECF 310. Disclosure of such
information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 6.

DENIED as to
remainder.

14

GRANTED as to
proposed redacted
portions submitted by
Google, the designating
party (ECF 310-1).

The remainder is denied because
Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 6.

GRANTED as to
proposed redacted
portions submitted by
Google, the designating
party (ECF 310-2).

The proposed redacted portions
contain highly confidential
information relating to Google’s
ad display architecture and
infrastructure. Mehta Decl. ¶ 7,
ECF 310. Disclosure of such
information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 7.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

304-5

Excerpts from the
Deposition Transcript of
Aparna Pappu

25
26
27
28

DENIED as to
remainder.
11

The remainder is denied because

1

ECF
No.

Document to be Sealed:

Result

2

Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 7.

3
4
5

304-6

Google Patent License,
GRANTED.
Sale and Assignment
Agreement bearing
production Bates numbers
GOOG_WAH_00134638GOOG_WAH_00134673

The proposed redacted portions
contain highly confidential
financial information relating to a
third-party license agreement.
Mehta Decl. ¶ 8, ECF 310.
Disclosure of such information
would provide an unfair business
advantage to competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4,
8.

304-7

Excerpts from the
Deposition Transcript of
Tom Shields

DENIED.

Google, the designating party,
states that it does not seek to seal
this document. Mehta Decl. ¶ 9.

304-8

Excerpts from Appendix
F to the Report of
Plaintiff’s Expert
Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth

GRANTED as to
proposed redacted
portions submitted by
Google, the designating
party (ECF 310-3).

The proposed redacted portions
contain highly confidential
information relating to Google’s
ad display architecture and
infrastructure. Mehta Decl. ¶ 10,
ECF 310. Disclosure of such
information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 10.

DENIED as to
remainder.

The remainder is denied because
Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 10.

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

Reasoning

304-9

Excerpts from a document GRANTED.
entitled: “Company
Disclosure Schedule”
dated April 13, 2007 and
produced by Google
bearing production Bates
numbers
GOOG_WAH_00099914,
00099934-38, 0009994675, 00100015, and
00100025-26

28
12

The proposed redacted portions
contain highly confidential
financial information relating to a
third-party merger agreement.
Mehta Decl. ¶ 11, ECF 310.
Disclosure of such information
would provide an unfair business
advantage to competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4,
11.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

ECF
No.

Document to be Sealed:

Result

304-10 Excerpts from a document GRANTED.
entitled: “Agreement and
Plan of Merger By and
Among Google Inc.,
Whopper Acquisition
Corp. and Click Holdings
Corp. dated April 13,
2007 and produced by
Google bearing
production Bates numbers
GOOG_WAH_00069938,
00069944, 00069946,
00069955, 00069961-62,
00069965-68, 0006999900070000

The proposed redacted portions
contain highly confidential
financial information relating to a
third-party merger agreement.
Mehta Decl. ¶ 11, ECF 310.
Disclosure of such information
would provide an unfair business
advantage to competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4,
11.

304-11 Excerpts from the
Deposition Transcript of
Kevin C. Almeroth

GRANTED as to
proposed redacted
portions submitted by
Google, the designating
party (ECF 310-4).

The proposed redacted portions
contain highly confidential
information relating to Google’s
source code. Mehta Decl. ¶ 12,
ECF 310. Disclosure of such
information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 12.

DENIED as to
remainder.

The remainder is denied because
Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 12.

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

Reasoning

304-12 Excerpts from the Expert DENIED.
Report of Peter Alexander

Google, the designating party,
states that it does not seek to seal
this document. Mehta Decl. ¶ 13.

304-13 Excerpts from the
Rebuttal Report of
Plaintiff’s Expert,
Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth

DENIED.

Google, the designating party,
states that it does not seek to seal
this document. Mehta Decl. ¶ 14.

304-14 Excerpts from the
Deposition Transcript of
Peter Alexander

DENIED.

Google, the designating party,
states that it does not seek to seal
this document. Mehta Decl. ¶ 15.

304-15 Excerpts from the Report GRANTED as to
of Plaintiff’s Expert,
proposed redacted
Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth
portions submitted by

28
13

The proposed redacted portions
contain highly confidential
information relating to Google’s
ad display architecture and

1

ECF
No.

Document to be Sealed:

2

Result

Reasoning

Google, the designating infrastructure. Mehta Decl. ¶ 16,
party (ECF 310-5).
ECF 310. Disclosure of such
information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 16.

3
4
5

DENIED as to
remainder.

6

The remainder is denied because
Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 16.

DENIED.

Google, the designating party,
states that it does not seek to seal
this document. Mehta Decl. ¶ 17.

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

304-16 Excerpts from the
Deposition Transcript of
Dwight Merriman

304-17 Excerpts from the
GRANTED as to
Rebuttal Expert Report of proposed redacted
Michael J. Freedman
portions submitted by
Google, the designating
party (ECF 310-6).

14
15

The proposed redacted portions
contain highly confidential
information relating to Google’s
ad display architecture and
infrastructure. Mehta Decl. ¶ 18,
ECF 310. Disclosure of such
information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 18.

16
DENIED as to
remainder.

The remainder is denied because
Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 18.

DENIED.

Google, the designating party,
states that it does not seek to seal
this document. Mehta Decl. ¶ 19.

304-19 Excerpts from a document DENIED.
entitled: How did
DoubleClick get here?
Produced by Google
bearing production Bates
numbers
GOOG_WAH_00227661,
GOOG_WAH_00227680

Google, the designating party,
states that it does not seek to seal
this document. Mehta Decl. ¶ 20.

304-20 Excerpts from the
Deposition Transcript of
Michael Kleber

The proposed redacted portions
contain highly confidential
information relating to Google’s

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

304-18 Excerpts from the Expert
Report of Laura B.
Stamm

GRANTED as to
proposed redacted
portions submitted by
14

1

ECF
No.

2

Document to be Sealed:

Result

Reasoning

Google, the designating ad display architecture and
party (ECF 310-7).
infrastructure. Mehta Decl. ¶ 21,
ECF 310. Disclosure of such
information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 21.

3
4
5
6

DENIED as to
remainder.

7
8

The remainder is denied because
Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 21.

9
10

12

C. ECF 307 (Defendants’ Motion as to Defendants’ Opposition and Exhibits)
ECF Document to be Sealed:
Result
Reasoning
No.

13

307-4

Google LLC’s
GRANTED as to the
Opposition to Plaintiff’s highlighted portions.
Motion for Summary
Judgment and Motion to
Strike

The proposed redacted portions
contain highly confidential
information relating to the design
and operation of Google’s ad
display architecture and
infrastructure. Dowd Decl. ¶ 6,
ECF 307-1. Disclosure of such
information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 6.

307-6

Exhibit 3 to the
GRANTED as to the
Declaration of Matthias highlighted portions.
A. Kamber in support of
Defendant Google LLC’s
Opposition to Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary
Judgment and Motion to
Strike

The proposed redacted portions
contain highly confidential
information relating to the design
and operation of Google’s ad
display architecture and
infrastructure. Dowd Decl. ¶ 7,
ECF 307-1. Disclosure of such
information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 7.

307-8

Exhibit 4 to the
GRANTED as to the
Declaration of Matthias highlighted portions.
A. Kamber in support of
Defendant Google LLC’s
Opposition to Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary

The proposed redacted portions
contain highly confidential
information relating to the design
and operation of Google’s ad
display architecture and
infrastructure. Dowd Decl. ¶ 8,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

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

15

1
2
3

ECF
No.

Document to be Sealed:

Result

Judgment and Motion to
Strike

ECF 307-1. Disclosure of such
information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 8.

4
5
6
7
8
9

307-10 Exhibit 5 to the
GRANTED as to the
Declaration of Matthias highlighted portions.
A. Kamber in support of
Defendant Google LLC’s
Opposition to Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary
Judgment and Motion to
Strike

The proposed redacted portions
contain highly confidential
information relating to the design
and operation of Google’s ad
display architecture and
infrastructure. Dowd Decl. ¶ 9,
ECF 307-1. Disclosure of such
information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 9.

307-11 Exhibit 6 to the
GRANTED as to the
Declaration of Matthias entire document.
A. Kamber in support of
Defendant Google LLC’s
Opposition to Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary
Judgment and Motion to
Strike

The proposed redaction contains
highly confidential information
relating to the design and
operation of Google’s ad display
architecture and infrastructure.
Dowd Decl. ¶ 10, ECF 307-1.
Disclosure of such information
would provide an unfair business
advantage to competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4,
10.

307-13 Exhibit 7 to the
GRANTED as to the
Declaration of Matthias highlighted portions.
A. Kamber in support of
Defendant Google LLC’s
Opposition to Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary
Judgment and Motion to
Strike

The proposed redacted portions
contain highly confidential
information relating to the design
and operation of Google’s ad
display architecture and
infrastructure. Dowd Decl. ¶ 11,
ECF 307-1. Disclosure of such
information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 11.

307-14 Exhibit 8 to the
GRANTED as to the
Declaration of Matthias entire document.
A. Kamber in support of
Defendant Google LLC’s
Opposition to Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary
Judgment and Motion to
Strike

The proposed redaction contains
highly confidential information
relating to the design and
operation of Google’s ad display
architecture and infrastructure.
Dowd Decl. ¶ 12, ECF 307-1.
Disclosure of such information
would provide an unfair business
advantage to competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4,
12.

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

Reasoning

28
16

1
2
3
4
5
6

ECF
No.

Document to be Sealed:

Result

307-16 Exhibit 20 to the
GRANTED as to the
Declaration of Matthias highlighted portions.
A. Kamber in support of
Defendant Google LLC’s
Opposition to Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary
Judgment and Motion to
Strike

7

Reasoning
The proposed redacted portions
contain highly confidential
information relating to the design
and operation of Google’s ad
display architecture and
infrastructure. Dowd Decl. ¶ 13,
ECF 307-1. Disclosure of such
information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 13.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

D. ECF 320 (Plaintiff’s Motion as to Plaintiff’s Reply and Exhibits)
ECF Document to be Sealed:
Result
Reasoning
No.
320-4

Plaintiff’s Reply in
Support of Motion for
Summary Judgment and
to Strike

14

The proposed redacted portions
contain highly confidential
information relating to Google’s
source code. Mehta Decl. ¶ 1, ECF
324. Disclosure of such
information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶ 1.

DENIED as to
remainder.

13

GRANTED as to
proposed redacted
portions submitted by
Google, the designating
party (ECF 324-1).

The remainder is denied because
Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 1.

GRANTED as to
proposed redacted
portions submitted by
Google, the designating
party (ECF 324-2).

The proposed redacted portions
contain highly confidential
information relating to Google’s
source code. Mehta Decl. ¶ 2, ECF
324. Disclosure of such
information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶ 2.

DENIED as to
remainder.

The remainder is denied because
Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 2.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

320-5

Excerpts from the
Deposition of Peter
Alexander

23
24
25
26
27
28
17

1

ECF
No.

Document to be Sealed:

2

320-6

Excerpts from the
Deposition of Mark
Scheele

DENIED.

Google, the designating party,
states that it does not seek to seal
this document. Mehta Decl. ¶ 3.

320-7

Excerpts from the
Deposition of Phillip
Lindsay

DENIED.

Google, the designating party,
states that it does not seek to seal
this document. Mehta Decl. ¶ 4.

320-8

A table regarding
DoubleClick Source
Code

GRANTED.

The proposed redacted portions
contain highly confidential
information relating to Google’s
source code. Mehta Decl. ¶ 5,
ECF 324. Disclosure of such
information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶ 5.

320-9

Excerpts from the
Deposition of Dwight
Merriman

GRANTED as to
proposed redacted
portions submitted by
Google, the designating
party (ECF 324-3).

The proposed redacted portions
contain highly confidential
information relating to Google’s
ad display architecture and
infrastructure. Mehta Decl. ¶ 6,
ECF 324. Disclosure of such
information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶ 6.

DENIED as to
remainder.

The remainder is denied because
Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 6.

3
4
5
6
7

Result

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

320-10 Excerpts from Google’s GRANTED.
Source Code Production

The proposed redacted portions
contain highly confidential
information relating to Google’s
source code. Mehta Decl. ¶ 7,
ECF 324. Disclosure of such
information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶ 7.

320-11 Excerpts from the
Rebuttal Expert Report
of Michael J. Freedman

Google, the designating party,
states that it does not seek to seal
this document. Mehta Decl. ¶ 8.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Reasoning

DENIED.

320-12 Excerpts from Plaintiff’s GRANTED as to
First Amended
proposed redacted
Infringement Claim
portions submitted by
18

The proposed redacted portions
contain highly confidential
information relating to Google’s

1

ECF
No.

2

Document to be Sealed:
Charts for U.S. Patent
6,286,045

3
4
5
6

Result

Google, the designating ad display architecture and
party (ECF 324-4).
infrastructure. Mehta Decl. ¶ 9,
ECF 324. Disclosure of such
information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶ 9.
DENIED as to
remainder.

The remainder is denied because
Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 9.

GRANTED as to
proposed redacted
portions submitted by
Google, the designating
party (ECF 324-5).

The proposed redacted portions
contain highly confidential
information relating to Google’s
ad display architecture and
infrastructure. Mehta Decl. ¶ 10,
ECF 324. Disclosure of such
information would provide an
unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶ 10.

DENIED as to
remainder.

7

The remainder is denied because
Google, the designating party,
does not represent that the
remaining portions should be
sealed. Mehta Decl. ¶ 10.

8
9
10

320-13 Excerpts from the
Deposition of Alex
Hioreanu

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Reasoning

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

E. ECF 317 (Defendants’ Motion as to Defendants’ Reply and Exhibits)
ECF Document to be Sealed:
Result
Reasoning
No.
317-4

Reply Brief in Support of GRANTED as to the
Google LLC’s Motion
highlighted portions.
for Summary Judgment

24
25
26
27
28
19

The proposed redacted portions
contain highly confidential
information relating to Google’s
strategic licensing practices. Dowd
Decl. ¶ 6, ECF 317-1. Disclosure
of such information would provide
an unfair business advantage to
competitors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 6.

1
2

III.

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motions at ECF 307 and ECF 317 are GRANTED;

and Plaintiff’s motions at ECF 296, ECF 300, ECF 304, and ECF 320 are GRANTED IN PART

3
and DENIED IN PART.
4
For any request that has been denied, if the designating party has not already publicly
5
submitted the properly redacted version of the documents, the submitting party must file the
6
unredacted (or lesser redacted) documents into the public record no earlier than 4 days and no later
7
than 10 days from the filing of this order. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(2).
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Dated: October 26, 2018
12
13
14

______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

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