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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?