Bold Limited v. Rocket Resume, Inc. et al

Filing 234

ORDER RE: 201 202 206 209 210 217 218 SEALING MOTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO PRECLUDE DAMAGES THEORY. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 3/27/24. (blflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/27/2024)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

BOLD LIMITED, et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,
v.

9
10

ROCKET RESUME, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

218]

13

Before the Court are the parties’ sealing motions in connection with Defendants Rocket

14

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

ORDER REGARDING SEALING
MOTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO
PRECLUDE DAMAGES THEORY
[Re: ECF No. 201, 202, 206, 209, 210, 217,

12

15

Case No. 22-cv-01045-BLF

Resume, Inc., and Stephen Zimmerman’s motion for summary judgment and motion to preclude
damages theory. ECF Nos. 201, 202, 206, 209, 210, 217, and 218. The Court has considered the
motions, and its rulings are laid out below.
I.

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

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435
U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are
“more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of
“compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092,
1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed
upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097.
In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local
Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a

1

document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that

2

warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive

3

alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5

4

requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.”

5

Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable

6

material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3).
Further, when a party seeks to seal a document because it has been designated as

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7
8

confidential by another party, the filing party must file an Administrative Motion to Consider

9

Whether Another Party’s Material Should be Sealed. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f). In that case, the filing

10

party need not satisfy the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(1). Instead, the

11

party who designated the material as confidential must, within seven days of the motion’s filing,

12

file a statement and/or declaration that meets the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79-

13

5(f)(3). A designating party’s failure to file a statement or declaration may result in the unsealing

14

of the provisionally sealed document without further notice to the designating party. Id. Any

15

party can file a response to that declaration within four days. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(4).

16
17

II.

DISCUSSION
Because the motions to seal pertain to a motion for summary judgment and motion to

18

preclude damages theory, the Court will apply the “compelling reasons” standard. See Kamakana,

19

447 F.3d at 1177. The Court will address each motion in turn.

20
21
22

A.

Defendants’ Administrative Motions to Consider Whether Another Party’s
Material Should be Sealed in Connection with Their Motion to Preclude
Damages Theory (ECF Nos. 201, 209)

Defendants filed an administrative motion to consider whether another party’s material

23

should be sealed in connection with their motion to preclude damages theory. ECF No. 201.

24

Defendants have identified portions of their motion to preclude damages theory and certain

25

exhibits in support of that motion as containing information designated by Plaintiff Bold Limited

26

as “highly confidential.” Id. at 2. Defendants later amended their motion to modify the redactions

27

to the motion to preclude damages theory. ECF No. 209. Bold filed a statement in support of

28

sealing that states that these documents contain confidential information “concerning Bold’s
2

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

finances, internal competitive metrics, internal business strategies, and nonpublic corporate

2

structure.” ECF No. 215 ¶ 4. Bold also seeks to seal only narrow redactions to the documents.

3

Id. ¶ 3. No party has filed an opposition to Bold’s statement.

4

Compelling reasons exist to seal confidential business information, including non-public

5

information about a company’s business strategy, business transactions, corporate structure, and

6

finances. See Droplets, Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc., No. 12-CV-03733-JST, 2019 WL 9443777, at *3

7

(N.D. Cal. June 18, 2019) (finding compelling reasons to seal non-public information concerning

8

business transactions, corporate structure, and settlement agreements under the more stringent

9

compelling reasons standard); Unlockd Media, Inc. Liquidation Tr. v. Google LLC, No. 21-CV-

10

07250-HSG, 2022 WL 4624985, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2022) (finding compelling reasons to

11

seal non-public information related to a company’s business model); In re Google Location Hist.

12

Litig., No. 5:18-cv-05062-EJD, 514 F.Supp.3d 1147, 1162 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2021) (“Compelling

13

reasons may exist to seal ‘trade secrets, marketing strategies, product development plans, detailed

14

product-specific financial information, customer information, internal reports.’”); Fed. Trade

15

Comm’n v. Microsoft Corp., No. 23-CV-02880-JSC, 2023 WL 5186252, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11,

16

2023) (finding compelling reasons to seal “[n]on-public sensitive financial information”); In re

17

Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding sealable “business information that

18

might harm a litigant’s competitive standing”).

19

The Court finds compelling reasons to seal the information identified in the highlighted

20

portions proposed by Bold of Defendants’ motion to preclude damages theory and the exhibits

21

listed in the table below. These documents discuss non-public information about Bold’s corporate

22

structure and finances, which if released would cause Bold competitive harm. The Court further

23

finds that Bold’s requests to seal these documents are “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable

24

material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3).

25
26
27
28

The Court rules as follows:
ECF No.
215-1

Document
Defendants Rocket
Resume, Inc.’s and
Stephen Zimmerman’s

Portions to Seal
Highlighted
Portions
3

Ruling
GRANTED as containing
confidential business
information, the release of which

1
2

215-2

3
4
5
6
215-3
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

215-4

12
13
14
15
16

215-5

17
18
19
20

215-6

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

215-7

Motion to Preclude
Damages Theory
Ex. D to the
Declaration of Joseph
A. Gorman in Support
of Defendants Rocket
Resume, Inc.’s and
Stephen Zimmerman’s
Motion to Preclude
Damages Theory
Ex. E to the
Declaration of Joseph
A. Gorman in Support
of Defendants Rocket
Resume, Inc.’s and
Stephen Zimmerman’s
Motion to Preclude
Damages Theory
Ex. G to the
Declaration of Joseph
A. Gorman in Support
of Defendants Rocket
Resume, Inc.’s and
Stephen Zimmerman’s
Motion to Preclude
Damages Theory
Ex. H to the
Declaration of Joseph
A. Gorman in Support
of Defendants Rocket
Resume, Inc.’s and
Stephen Zimmerman’s
Motion to Preclude
Damages Theory
Ex. I to the Declaration
of Joseph A. Gorman in
Support of Defendants
Rocket Resume, Inc.’s
and Stephen
Zimmerman’s Motion
to Preclude Damages
Theory
Ex. J to the Declaration
of Joseph A. Gorman in
Support of Defendants
Rocket Resume, Inc.’s
and Stephen
Zimmerman’s Motion

Highlighted
Portions

would cause a party competitive
harm.
GRANTED as containing
confidential business
information, the release of which
would cause a party competitive
harm.

Highlighted
Portions

GRANTED as containing
confidential business
information, the release of which
would cause a party competitive
harm.

Highlighted
Portions

GRANTED as containing
confidential business
information, the release of which
would cause a party competitive
harm.

Highlighted
Portions

GRANTED as containing
confidential business
information, the release of which
would cause a party competitive
harm.

Highlighted
Portions

GRANTED as containing
confidential business
information, the release of which
would cause a party competitive
harm.

Highlighted
Portions

GRANTED as containing
confidential business
information, the release of which
would cause a party competitive
harm.

4

to Preclude Damages
Theory

1
2

B.

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

Defendants have filed an administrative motion to file under seal that seeks to seal
highlighted portions of their motion to preclude damages theory and certain exhibits in support of
that motion. ECF No. 202. Defendants argue that this information should be kept under seal
because “[t]hese documents contain commercially sensitive information concerning [Defendants’]
finances, customers and subscribers, and internal business operations and strategies, which could
cause [Defendants] significant competitive harm if made public.” Id. at 4. No party has filed an
objection to the motion.
As stated above, compelling reasons exist to seal confidential business information,
including non-public information about a company’s business strategy, business transactions,
corporate structure, and finances. See Droplets, 2019 WL 9443777, at *3; Unlockd Media, Inc.
Liquidation Tr., 2022 WL 4624985, at *2; In re Google Location Hist. Litig., 514 F.Supp.3d at
1162; Microsoft, 2023 WL 5186252, at *5; In re Elec. Arts, 298 F.App’x at 569.
The Court finds compelling reasons to seal the information identified in the highlighted
portions of Defendants’ motion to preclude damages theory and the exhibits listed in the table
below. These documents discuss non-public information about Defendants’ business operations
and finances, which if released would cause Defendants competitive harm. The Court further
finds that Defendants’ requests to seal these documents are “narrowly tailored to seal only the
sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3).
The Court rules as follows:
ECF No.
202-3

24
25
26
27
28

Defendants’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Connection with Their
Motion to Preclude Damages Theory (ECF No. 202)

202-4

Document
Rocket’s Motion to
Preclude Damages
Theory

Portions to Seal
Highlighted
Portions

Ex. D to the
Declaration of Joseph
A. Gorman in Support
of Defendants Rocket

Highlighted
Portions

5

Ruling
GRANTED as containing
confidential business
information, the release of which
would cause a party competitive
harm.
GRANTED as containing
confidential business
information, the release of which
would cause a party competitive

1
2
3

202-5

4
5
6
7
8

202-6

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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

Resume, Inc.’s and
Stephen Zimmerman’s
Motion to Preclude
Damages Theory
Ex. H to the
Declaration of Joseph
A. Gorman in Support
of Defendants Rocket
Resume, Inc.’s and
Stephen Zimmerman’s
Motion to Preclude
Damages Theory
Ex. I to the Declaration
of Joseph A. Gorman in
Support of Defendants
Rocket Resume, Inc.’s
and Stephen
Zimmerman’s Motion
to Preclude Damages
Theory

harm.

Highlighted
Portions

GRANTED as containing
confidential business
information, the release of which
would cause a party competitive
harm.

Highlighted
Portions

GRANTED as containing
confidential business
information, the release of which
would cause a party competitive
harm.

Because the motions at ECF Nos. 201, 202, and 209 and the corresponding statement at ECF No.
215 seek to seal overlapping documents, the Court ORDERS Defendants to consolidate the
redactions identified at ECF Nos. 202 and 215 that the Court has approved and file redacted
versions of their motion to preclude damages theory and Exhibits D, E, G, H, I, and J on the public
docket within 7 days of the date of this Order.
C.

Defendants’ Administrative Motions to Consider Whether Another Party’s
Material Should Be Sealed in Connection with Their Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF Nos. 206, 210)

Defendants filed an administrative motion to consider whether another party’s material
should be sealed in connection with their motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 206.
Defendants have identified portions of their motion for summary judgment and certain exhibits in
support of that motion as containing information designated by Bold as “highly confidential.” Id.
at 2. Defendants later amended their motion to modify the redactions to the motion for summary
judgment. ECF No. 210. Bold filed a statement that requests that highlighted portions of
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and Exhibit E as well as the entirety of Exhibits A and
D remain under seal because those documents include information “concerning Bold’s internal
business practices, finances, internal competitive metrics, internal business strategies, and
6

1

nonpublic corporate structure.” ECF No. 219 ¶ 4. Bold does not seek to seal the remainder of the

2

exhibits identified in Defendants’ motion. Id. ¶ 3. No party has filed an opposition to Bold’s

3

statement.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

4

As stated above, compelling reasons exist to seal confidential business information,

5

including non-public information about a company’s business strategy, business transactions,

6

corporate structure, and finances. See Droplets, 2019 WL 9443777, at *3; Unlockd Media, Inc.

7

Liquidation Tr., 2022 WL 4624985, at *2; In re Google Location Hist. Litig., 514 F.Supp.3d at

8

1162; Microsoft, 2023 WL 5186252, at *5; In re Elec. Arts, 298 F.App’x at 569.

9

The Court finds compelling reasons to seal the information identified in the highlighted

10

portions proposed by Bold of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and Exhibit E. These

11

documents discuss non-public information about Bold’s corporate structure and finances, which if

12

released would cause Bold competitive harm. The Court further finds that Bold’s requests to seal

13

these documents are “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3).

14

However, Bold’s request to seal the entirety of Exhibits A and D (an expert report and a set of

15

interrogatory responses) is not narrowly tailored because there are not compelling reasons to seal

16

all of the information in these documents.

17

The Court rules as follows:

18
19

ECF No.
219-1

20
21
22

206-3

23
24
25
26
27
28

206-4

Document
Defendants Rocket
Resume, Inc.’s and
Stephen Zimmerman’s
Motion for Summary
Adjudication
Ex. A to the
Declaration of
Christina Myrold in
support of Defendants’
Motion for Summary
Adjudication
Ex. D to the
Declaration of
Christina Myrold in
support of Defendants’
Motion for Summary
Adjudication

Portions to Seal
Highlighted
Portions

Entire Document

Entire Document

7

Ruling
GRANTED as containing
confidential business
information, the release of which
would cause a party competitive
harm.
DENIED as not narrowly
tailored.

DENIED as not narrowly
tailored.

1

219-2

2
3
4

206-6

5
6
7

206-7

8
9
10
206-8

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

206-8

15
16

Ex. E to the
Declaration of
Christina Myrold in
support of Defendants’
Motion for Summary
Adjudication
Ex. F to the Declaration
of Christina Myrold in
support of Defendants’
Motion for Summary
Adjudication
Ex. G to the
Declaration of
Christina Myrold in
support of Defendants’
Motion for Summary
Adjudication
Ex. H to the
Declaration of
Christina Myrold in
support of Defendants’
Motion for Summary
Adjudication
Ex. I to the Declaration
of Christina Myrold in
support of Defendants’
Motion for Summary
Adjudication

Highlighted
Portions

GRANTED as containing
confidential business
information, the release of which
would cause a party competitive
harm.

Entire Document

DENIED because Bold
represents that the document
need not be sealed.

Entire Document

DENIED because Bold
represents that the document
need not be sealed.

Entire Document

DENIED because Bold
represents that the document
need not be sealed.

Entire Document

DENIED because Bold
represents that the document
need not be sealed.

17

The above denials are WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Bold filing a renewed statement in support of

18

sealing Exhibits A and D that includes narrow redactions. The Court ORDERS Defendants to file

19

redacted versions of their motion for summary judgment and Exhibit E and unredacted versions of

20

Exhibits F, G, H, and I on the public docket within 7 days of the date of this Order.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

D.

Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Connection with Its
Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Preclude Damages Theory (ECF No. 217)

Plaintiff has filed an administrative motion to file under seal that seeks to seal highlighted
portions of its opposition to Defendants’ motion to preclude damages theory and certain exhibits
in support of that opposition. ECF No. 217. Bold argues that these documents contain
information “relating to Bold’s business model, corporate organization, business transactions, and
finances.” Id. at 2. No party has filed an objection to the motion.
As stated above, compelling reasons exist to seal confidential business information,
8

1

including non-public information about a company’s business strategy, business transactions,

2

corporate structure, and finances. See Droplets, 2019 WL 9443777, at *3; Unlockd Media, Inc.

3

Liquidation Tr., 2022 WL 4624985, at *2; In re Google Location Hist. Litig., 514 F.Supp.3d at

4

1162; Microsoft, 2023 WL 5186252, at *5; In re Elec. Arts, 298 F.App’x at 569.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

The Court finds compelling reasons to seal the information identified in the Bold’s

6

opposition and Exhibits L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, and T. These documents discuss non-public

7

information about Bold’s business operations and finances, which if released would cause Bold

8

competitive harm. The Court further finds that Bold’s requests to seal these documents are

9

“narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). However, Bold’s

10

request to seal the entirety of Exhibit J is not narrowly tailored because there are not compelling

11

reasons to seal all of the information in this document.

12
13
14

The Court rules as follows:
ECF No.
217-3

Document
Bold’s Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion to
Preclude Damages
Theory

Portions to Seal
Highlighted
Portions

217-4

Victorson Decl. Ex. J

Entire Document

217-5

Victorson Decl. Ex. L

Highlighted
Portions

217-6

Victorson Decl. Ex. M

Highlighted
Portions

217-7

Victorson Decl. Ex. N

Highlighted
Portions

217-8

Victorson Decl. Ex. O

Highlighted
Portions

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

9

Ruling
GRANTED as containing
confidential business
information, the release of which
would cause a party competitive
harm.
DENIED as not narrowly
tailored.
GRANTED as containing
confidential business
information, the release of which
would cause a party competitive
harm.
GRANTED as containing
confidential business
information, the release of which
would cause a party competitive
harm.
GRANTED as containing
confidential business
information, the release of which
would cause a party competitive
harm.
GRANTED as containing
confidential business
information, the release of which

1
2

217-9

Victorson Decl. Ex. P

Highlighted
Portions

217-10

Victorson Decl. Ex. Q

Highlighted
Portions

217-11

Victorson Decl. Ex. R

Highlighted
Portions

217-12

Victorson Decl. Ex. S

Highlighted
Portions

217-13

Victorson Decl. Ex. T

Highlighted
Portions

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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

would cause a party competitive
harm.
GRANTED as containing
confidential business
information, the release of which
would cause a party competitive
harm.
GRANTED as containing
confidential business
information, the release of which
would cause a party competitive
harm.
GRANTED as containing
confidential business
information, the release of which
would cause a party competitive
harm.
GRANTED as containing
confidential business
information, the release of which
would cause a party competitive
harm.
GRANTED as containing
confidential business
information, the release of which
would cause a party competitive
harm.

The above denial as to Exhibit J is WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Bold filing a renewed statement in
support of sealing that includes narrow redactions.
E.

Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s
Material Should Be Sealed in Connection with Its Opposition to Defendants’
Motion to Preclude Damages Theory (ECF No. 218)

Bold filed an administrative motion to consider whether another party’s material should be
sealed in connection with its opposition to Defendants’ motion to preclude damages theory. ECF
No. 218. Bold has identified portions of its opposition and certain exhibits in support of the
opposition as containing information designated by Defendants as “highly confidential.” Id. at 2.
Defendants filed a statement that requests that highlighted portions of the Exhibits M, P, Q, and R
and the entirety of Exhibit T remain under seal because:
These materials contain commercially sensitive, highly confidential,
nonpublic, and closely guarded information regarding: (1) Rocket’s
finances, financial records, and business transactions; (2) Rocket’s
subscribers and customer information; (3) Rocket’s internal business
10

operations and strategies; and (4) Rocket’s internal competitive
metrics and the internal strategies Rocket uses to evaluate its
competitive position in the market.

1
2
3

ECF No. 229 ¶ 5. Defendants do not seek to seal Bold’s opposition. Id. ¶ 3. No party has filed an

4

opposition to Defendants’ statement.

5
6

including non-public information about a company’s business strategy, business transactions,

7

corporate structure, and finances. See Droplets, 2019 WL 9443777, at *3; Unlockd Media, Inc.

8

Liquidation Tr., 2022 WL 4624985, at *2; In re Google Location Hist. Litig., 514 F.Supp.3d at

9

1162; Microsoft, 2023 WL 5186252, at *5; In re Elec. Arts, 298 F.App’x at 569.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

As stated above, compelling reasons exist to seal confidential business information,

The Court finds compelling reasons to seal the information identified in the highlighted

11

portions proposed by Defendants of Bold’s opposition and Exhibits M, P, Q, and R. These

12

documents discuss non-public information about Defendants’ business operations and finances,

13

which if released would cause Defendants competitive harm. The Court further finds that

14

Defendants’ requests to seal these documents are “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable

15

material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). However, Bold’s request to seal the entirety of Exhibit T is not

16

narrowly tailored because there are not compelling reasons to seal all of the information in this

17

document.

18
19
20

The Court rules as follows:
ECF No.
218-2

Portions to Seal
Highlighted
Portions

Ruling
DENIED because Defendants
represent that the document need
not be sealed.

229-1

Document
Bold’s Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion to
Preclude Damages
Theory
Victorson Decl. Ex. M

Highlighted
Portions

229-2

Victorson Decl. Ex. P

Highlighted
Portions

229-3

Victorson Decl. Ex. Q

Highlighted

GRANTED as containing
confidential business
information, the release of which
would cause a party competitive
harm.
GRANTED as containing
confidential business
information, the release of which
would cause a party competitive
harm.
GRANTED as containing

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

11

Portions

1
2
3

229-4

Victorson Decl. Ex. R

Highlighted
Portions

218-7

Victorson Decl. Ex. T

Entire Document

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

confidential business
information, the release of which
would cause a party competitive
harm.
GRANTED as containing
confidential business
information, the release of which
would cause a party competitive
harm.
DENIED as not narrowly
tailored.

Because the motions at ECF Nos. 217 and 218 and the corresponding statement at ECF No. 229
seek to seal overlapping documents, the Court ORDERS Bold to consolidate the redactions
identified at ECF Nos. 217 and 229 that the Court has approved and file redacted versions of their
opposition and Exhibits L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, and S on the public docket within 7 days of the date
of this Order. The above denial as to Exhibit T is WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Defendants filing a
renewed statement in support of sealing that includes narrow redactions.

13
III.
14
15
16
17
18
19

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Should be Sealed in Connection with Their Motion to Preclude Damages Theory (ECF Nos. 201,
209) are GRANTED.
2.

a. Defendants SHALL consolidate the redactions identified at ECF Nos. 202 and

21

215 that the Court has approved above and file redacted versions of their

22

motion to preclude damages theory and Exhibits D, E, G, H, I, and J on the

23

25
26
27

Defendants’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Connection with Their

Motion to Preclude Damages Theory (ECF No. 202) is GRANTED.

20

24

Defendants’ Administrative Motions to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material

public docket within 7 days of the date of this Order.
3.

Defendants’ Administrative Motions to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material

Should Be Sealed in Connection with Their Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 206, 210)
are GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, and DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART.
a. Defendants SHALL file redacted versions of their motion for summary

28
12

1

judgment and Exhibit E and unredacted versions of Exhibits F, G, H, and I on

2

the public docket within 7 days of the date of this Order.
b. Bold may file a renewed statement in support of sealing Exhibits A and D

3

within 7 days of the date of this Order.

4
5

4.

6

Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Preclude Damages Theory (ECF No. 217) is GRANTED IN

7

PART and DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART.
a. Bold may file a renewed motion to seal Exhibit J within 7 days of the date of

8

this Order.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Connection with Its

5.

Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material

11

Should Be Sealed in Connection with Its Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Preclude Damages

12

Theory (ECF No. 218) is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, and DENIED WITHOUT

13

PREJUDICE IN PART.

14

a. Bold SHALL consolidate the redactions identified at ECF Nos. 217 and 229

15

that the Court has approved and file redacted versions of their opposition and

16

Exhibits L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, and S on the public docket within 7 days of the

17

date of this Order.

18
19

b. Defendants may file a renewed statement in support of sealing Exhibit T within
7 days of the date of this Order.

20
21
22
23

Dated: March 27, 2024
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
13