# In re Google Play Consumer Antitrust Litigation

> District Court, N.D. California · August 25, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10068744

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** August 25, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10068744

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation Case No. 21-md-02981-JD

8
ORDER RE MOTION TO STAY AND
9 RENEWED APPLICATION TO SEAL
10
11

12 In a prior order, the Court denied the Google defendants’ request to seal portions of the
13 four complaints, which would have limited the public’s right of access to the court proceedings in
14 this high-profile multidistrict antitrust litigation. Dkt. No. 79. The reasons for the denial were
15 straightforward. “[J]udicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is
16 entitled to access by default.” Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180
17 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted); see also Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809
18 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (when considering a request to seal, “we start with a strong
19 presumption in favor of access to court records.”) (quotation omitted). As the party seeking to seal
20 the complaints, Google had “the burden of overcoming this strong presumption by meeting the
21 ‘compelling reasons’ standard.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut.
22 Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)); see also Center for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at
23 1098 (our precedent presumes that the “‘compelling reasons’ standard applies to most judicial
24 records.”) (quoting Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2009))
25 (emphasis added in Center for Auto Safety).
26 To seal portions of the complaints -- the documents that are the heart of this, and every,
27 lawsuit -- Google was required to “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual
1 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (cleaned up); see also Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678-79 (same);
2 Johnstech Int’l Corp. v. JF Microtechnology SDN BHD, No. 14-cv-02864-JD, 2016 WL 4091388,
3 at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2016) (party must provide “specific, individualized reasons for the
4 sealing”). Conclusory statements by a party about potential harm from public disclosure, or mere
5 hypothesis or conjecture, will not do. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179; Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49
6 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995). The fact that the parties may have designated a document as
7 confidential under a stipulated protective order is also not enough to justify sealing. “Such blanket
8 orders” are inherently overbroad and do not provide the “particularized showing” required to seal
9 any individual court record. See San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. United States District Court, 187
10 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999). In addition, different interests are at stake with the right of
11 access to court records than with the production of documents during discovery. See Kamakana,
12 447 F.3d at 1180.
13 Google had an ample opportunity to demonstrate a compelling reason for sealing, and
14 squandered it. The governing standards summarized here have been well-established for many
15 years, and our District’s local rules clearly state the procedures for Google to follow in making its
16 case. See Civil L.R. 79-5. Even so, Google presented nothing but generic and boilerplate
17 statements for its sealing requests. It gestured at its internal confidentiality practices as a ground
18 for sealing, which was nothing more than an ipse dixit rationale. See Dkt. No. 79 at 2. It
19 mentioned the protective orders entered in the litigation as a basis, but that carried little weight.
20 See id and supra. The “factual showing” it proffered was a declaration by a “Senior Legal Project
21 Manager” at Google stating that the disclosure of “non-public information” could, “[i]f revealed to
22 competitors and potential business counterparties, . . . disadvantage Google in marketing and in
23 negotiations.” Dkt. No. 74-1. This was literally all Google said with respect to meeting the
24 requirement of a specific factual demonstration of a compelling reason, and it repeated the same
25 statement over 140 times in the declaration, without any further commentary or evidence. Id.
26 Overall, Google made no showing whatsoever that might have favored keeping portions of the
27 complaints secret, and its “failure to meet that burden means that the default posture of public
1 Consequently, Google’s sealing requests were denied. Dkt. No. 79. Pursuant to Civil
2 Local Rule 79-5(f), the Court directed the plaintiff groups to file unredacted versions of their
3 respective complaints on ECF within 7 days of the order, namely by August 25, 2021. Id. at 3.
4 Epic beat that deadline and filed its unredacted complaint on August 19, 2021. Dkt. Nos. 81, 82.
5 The other three plaintiff groups apparently agreed to hold off on filing their unredacted complaints
6 at Google’s request. Dkt. No. 84-1 ¶¶ 8-11. On August 20, 2021, Google filed an “Emergency
7 Motion to Stay the Court’s August 18, 2021 Order,” Dkt. No. 83, as well as a “Renewed
8 Application to Seal,” Dkt. No. 85.
9 Google’s request for a do-over is misdirected in several respects. To start, Google cannot
10 credibly claim surprise or lack of a fair chance to address the sealing standards. The salient case
11 law and local rules have been on the books for a good while, and Google is represented here by
12 two top-tier law firms with ample resources to get a proper sealing request on file. In addition, the
13 Court expressly cautioned at a status conference that any requests to keep complaint allegations
14 sealed from the public would be closely scrutinized. See Dkt. No. 67 (“Google is advised that for
15 any portions of the complaints for which Google requests sealing, it will need to make a
16 persuasive showing that sealing is appropriate under the governing standards. Complaints are
17 foundational case documents to which the public has a strong right of access, especially in a case
18 such as this one.”). In these circumstances, Google’s plea for a break because this was the “first
19 sealing exercise” in the litigation, Dkt. No. 85 at 2, is unpersuasive.
20 So too for Google’s effort to pass the buck for its shortfall to the Court. Google hedged its
21 original requests with the statement that “if the Court believes that Google should support its
22 request with either a supplemental declaration or additional detail in support of its sealing request,
23 Google can provide such additional support and requests leave to do so.” Dkt. No. 161 at 2; Dkt.
24 No. 83-1 ¶ 3; Dkt. No. 84-1 ¶ 3. This fundamentally misunderstands federal motion practice. The
25 Court does not review a party’s motion papers and offer coaching pointers for a second round of
26 briefs. The burden is on the party to make its case in the first instance, as it sees fit. That is all the
27 more true in the sealing context, where the “judge need not document compelling reasons to
1 unseal; rather the proponent of sealing bears the burden with respect to sealing.” Kamakana, 447
2 F.3d at 1182.
3 Google is also less than forthright in characterizing the present motion as a “renewed”
4 application. There is no basis for that in the federal procedural rules. In effect, Google seeks
5 reconsideration of the prior order without owning up to the standards that govern reconsideration,
6 starting with the requirement that a party must request leave to file such a motion. See Civil L.R.
7 7-9(a) (“No party may notice a motion for reconsideration without first obtaining leave of Court to
8 file the motion.”). Nor did Google make any effort to demonstrate the existence of new facts or
9 law, or the other circumstances that might warrant reconsideration. See id. 7-9(b).
10 Altogether, Google has not established any reason to disturb the Court’s prior order. Even
11 so, purely in the interest of keeping this litigation on track, the Court has reviewed the “renewed
12 application,” Dkt. No. 85, which is directed to the complaints other than Epic’s, which was more
13 circumspect about Google’s information. The Court also reviewed the declaration of a Finance
14 Director for Google, LLC, Dkt. No. 85-1. These filings are more detailed in describing the
15 material Google is seeking to seal, and the reasons why Google believes each item should be
16 sealed. Id. None of this is new information, and should have been presented in the original
17 request.
18 Most of the “renewed” sealing requests are still inappropriate. Google has met its burden
19 only for a small subset of the sealing requests. The Court’s rulings are stated in the attached chart.
20 See Ex. A. The Court granted sealing for specific deal terms that might be used against Google in
21 other negotiations and deals. The Court declined to seal information outside this specific category
22 of sensitive information because Google did not demonstrate a plausible risk to its business from
23 publication. For example, Google did not present facts establishing that disclosure of profits and
24 revenues from portions of its business would cause it commercial harm. Google may be
25 uncomfortable that the public will see this data, but “a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or
26 exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.”
27 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citation omitted).
1 The Consumer Plaintiffs, Developer Plaintiffs, and Plaintiff States are directed to file
2 || revised redacted versions of their complaints which comport with this order within 7 days from the
3 date of this order. Civil L.R. 79-5()(3).
4 This resolves Google’s renewed application to seal. Dkt. No. 85. Google’s motion for a
5 stay, Dkt. No. 83, and the stipulated request for an order shortening time for that motion, Dkt.
6 No. 8&4, are terminated.
7 IT IS SO ORDERED.
8 Dated: August 25, 2021
9
10
JAME NATO
Unitedfftates District Judge
12

15
16

= 17

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

1 Exhibit A to Order re Motion to Stay and Renewed Application to Seal
2
Document Information sought Google’s Proffered Ruling
3
to be sealed Reason for Sealing
4
STATE ATTORNEY GENERALS’ COMPLAINT
5
Utah v. Paragraph 183, page Contains non-public Denied.
6 Google LLC, 59, line 18 (between financial revenue and
Case No. “made up” and “of revenue ratio
7
3:21-cv- overall” on line 19), information about
8 05227-JD, and line 19 (beginning individual Google
ECF 1 (Ex. A after “totaled some”) business lines which,
9 to Cramer to the end of the if revealed to
Decl.) paragraph. competitors or
10 counterparties, could
cause competitive
11
harm to Google, and
12 which could also cause
confusion for
13 investors. (see Cramer
Decl., ¶ 8).
14
Utah v. Paragraph 186, page Contains non-public Denied.
15 Google LLC, 60, line 14 (between information regarding
Case No. “collected” and “in revenue and profit
16
3:21-cv- overall”), line 14 margins for individual
17 05227-JD, (between “booked” Google business lines
ECF 1 (Ex. A and “in ‘Gross which, if revealed to
18 to Cramer Profit’”), line 15 competitors or
Decl.) (between “and” and counterparties, could
19 “in ‘Operating cause competitive
Income’”), and line 15 harm to Google, and
20
(between “over” and which could also cause
21 “that combines”). confusion for
investors. (see Cramer
22 Decl., ¶ 9).
23 Utah v. Paragraph 111, page Contains non-public Granted in part. The
Google LLC, 39, line 1 (beginning information regarding proposed language at lines
24
Case No. after “stated that”) to confidential business 4-5 may be sealed. The
25 3:21-cv- the end of the sentence strategies with respect public release of these
05227-JD, on line 2 (ending to potential contractual specific proposed terms of
26 ECF 1 (Ex. A before “One key”), counterparties and, in a contract could place
to Cramer line 3 (beginning after particular, specific Google in a diminished
27 Decl.) “was”) to the end of proposed terms of a bargaining position in
the sentence on line 3 contract with a future negotiations with
28
1 Document Information sought Google’s Proffered Ruling
2 to be sealed Reason for Sealing
3 (ending before “In business counterparty potential customers and
response”), and line 4 which, if revealed to competitors, thereby
4 (beginning after competitors or causing significant harm to
“among other things, counterparties, could Google’s competitive
5
to” to the end of the cause competitive standing.
6 sentence on line 5, harm to Google. (see
excluding “(emphasis Cramer Decl., ¶ 10).
7 in original).”
8 Utah v. Paragraph 129, page Contains non-public Denied.
Google LLC, 43, line 20 (after information regarding
9
Case No. “approximately”) to spend data for
10 3:21-cv- the end of the sentence individual Google
05227-JD, on line 21. business lines and
11 ECF 1 (Ex. A initiatives which, if
to Cramer revealed to
12 Decl.) competitors or
counterparties, could
13
cause competitive
14 harm to Google. (see
Cramer Decl., ¶ 11).
15
Utah v. Paragraph 132, page Contains non-public Denied.
16 Google LLC, 44, line 22 (between information revealing
Case No. “primarily” and “as a the counterparties to
17 3:21-cv- solution”). confidential
05227-JD, contractual
18
ECF 1 (Ex. A arrangements with
19 to Cramer Google which, if
Decl.) revealed to
20 competitors or
counterparties, could
21 cause competitive
harm to both Google
22
and the third parties.
23 (see Cramer Decl., ¶
12).
24
Utah v. Paragraph 136, page Contains non-public Granted in part. The
25 Google LLC, 46, line 16 (beginning information regarding proposed language at line
Case No. after “would”) to line a confidential business 24 may be sealed because it
26
3:21-cv- 17 (ending before strategy and terms reveals a specific term
27 05227-JD, “At”), line 24 offered during proposed to a contractual
28
1 Document Information sought Google’s Proffered Ruling
2 to be sealed Reason for Sealing
3 ECF 1 (Ex. A (beginning after “using negotiations with a counterparty, which could
to Cramer a”) to line 25 (ending potential contractual cause significant harm to
4 Decl.) before “(Google counterparty which, if Google’s competitive
offered”), and line 25 revealed to standing.
5
(beginning after competitors or
6 “Samsung would”) to counterparties, could
the end of the cause competitive
7 paragraph on line 26. harm to Google. (see
Cramer Decl., ¶ 13)
8
Utah v. Paragraph 136, page Contains non-public Granted. The proposed
9
Google LLC, 46, line 12 (between information regarding language may be sealed
10 Case No. “up to” and “in a confidential business because it reveals a specific
3:21-cv- return”). strategy and terms term proposed to a
11 05227-JD, offered during contractual counterparty,
ECF 1 (Ex. A negotiations with a which could cause
12 to Cramer potential contractual significant harm to
Decl.) counterparty which, if Google’s competitive
13
revealed to standing.
14 competitors or
counterparties, could
15 cause competitive
harm to Google. (see
16 Cramer Decl., ¶ 14).
17 Utah v. Paragraph 137, page Contains non-public Granted. The proposed
Google LLC, 47, line 15 (between information regarding language may be sealed
18
Case No. “proposed the” and terms offered during because it reveals a specific
19 3:21-cv- “were too low”). negotiations with a term proposed to a
05227-JD, potential contractual contractual counterparty,
20 ECF 1 (Ex. A counterparty which, if which could cause
to Cramer revealed to significant harm to
21 Decl.) competitors or Google’s competitive
counterparties, could standing.
22
cause competitive
23 harm to both Google
and the third party.
24 (see Cramer Decl., ¶
15).
25
26
27
28
1 Document Information sought Google’s Proffered Ruling
2 to be sealed Reason for Sealing
3 Utah v. Paragraph 139, page Contains non-public Granted. The proposed
Google LLC, 48, line 7 (beginning information regarding language may be sealed
4 Case No. after “According to terms offered during because it reveals specific
3:21-cv- Google, the”) to line 9 negotiations with a terms proposed to a
5
05227-JD, at the end of the potential contractual contractual counterparty,
6 ECF 1 (Ex. A sentence. counterparty which, if which could cause
to Cramer revealed to significant harm to
7 Decl.) competitors or Google’s competitive
counterparties, could standing.
8
cause competitive
harm to both Google
9
and the third party.
10 (see Cramer Decl., ¶
16).
11
Utah v. Paragraph 140, page Contains non-public Granted in part. The
12 Google LLC, 48, line 10 (beginning information regarding proposed language at lines
Case No. at the start of the a confidential business 11-12 may be sealed
13
3:21-cv- paragraph and ending strategy and terms because it reveals specific
14 05227-JD, before “was the offered during terms proposed to a
ECF 1 (Ex. A offer”), line 11 negotiations with a contractual counterparty,
15 to Cramer (starting after potential contractual which could cause
Decl.) “revenues for”) to line counterparty which, if significant harm to
16 12 at the end of the revealed to Google’s competitive
sentence (ending competitors or standing.
17
before “That counterparties, could
18 proposal”). cause competitive
harm to Google. (see
19 Cramer Decl., ¶ 17).
20 Utah v. Paragraph 141, page Contains non-public Granted in part. The
Google LLC, 48, line 15 (beginning information regarding proposed language at line
21 Case No. at the start of the a confidential business 15 (beginning after “to
3:21-cv- paragraph and ending strategy and terms provide a” and ending at
22
05227-JD, at “also included”), offered during “to Samsung”), and at lines
23 ECF 1 (Ex. A line 15 (beginning negotiations with a 16 through 19, may be
to Cramer after “to provide a” potential contractual sealed because it reveals
24 Decl.) and ending at “to counterparty which, if specific terms proposed to
Samsung”), line 16 revealed to a contractual counterparty,
25
(beginning after “use competitors or which could cause
26 to”) to line 17 (ending counterparties, could significant harm to
at “would include”), cause competitive Google’s competitive
27 line 17 (beginning standing.
28
1 Document Information sought Google’s Proffered Ruling
2 to be sealed Reason for Sealing
3 after “the following”) harm to Google. (see
to the end of the Cramer Decl., ¶ 18).
4 sentence on line 19
(ending before “Any
5
app”).
6
Utah v. Paragraph 148, page Contains non-public Denied.
7 Google LLC, 51, figure 5 (names of information revealing
Case No. contractual the counterparties to
8 3:21-cv- counterparties). confidential
05227-JD, contractual
9
ECF 1 (Ex. A arrangements with
10 to Cramer Google which, if
Decl.) revealed to
11 competitors or
counterparties, could
12 cause competitive
harm to both Google
13
and the third parties.
14 (see Cramer Decl., ¶
19).
15
Utah v. Paragraph 149, page Contains non-public Denied.
16 Google LLC, 51, line 20 (between information regarding
Case No. “developer” and “from an agreement between
17 3:21-cv- following”). Google and a third
05227-JD, party which, if
18
ECF 1 (Ex. A revealed to
19 to Cramer competitors or
Decl.) counterparties, could
20 cause competitive
harm to both Google
21 and the third party.
(see Cramer Decl., ¶
22
20).
23
Utah v. Paragraph 192, page Contains non-public Denied.
24 Google LLC, 61, line 14 (between information regarding
Case No. “suggested that a” and confidential business
25 3:21-cv- “commission”). strategies with respect
05227-JD, to pricing decisions
26
ECF 1 (Ex. A which, if revealed to
27 competitors or
28
1 Document Information sought Google’s Proffered Ruling
2 to be sealed Reason for Sealing
3 to Cramer counterparties, could
Decl.) cause competitive
4 harm to Google. (see
Cramer Decl., ¶ 21).
5
6 DEVELOPERS’ FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
7
8 In re Google Paragraph 86, page 29, Contains non-public Denied.
Play line 4 (between information regarding
9 Developer “Samsung made” and Play revenue data as
Antitrust “in revenue”), line 5 well as Google’s
10 Litigation, (between “Google had estimate of a
Case No. made” and “in sales”), competitor’s revenue
11
3:20-cv- and line 6 (between which, if revealed to
12 05792-JD, “Store had a” and competitors or
ECF 129 (Ex. “share of”) counterparties, could
13 B to Cramer cause competitive
Decl.) harm to both Google
14 and the third party,
and which could also
15
cause confusion for
16 investors. (see Cramer
Decl., ¶ 23).
17
In re Google Paragraph 170, page Contains non-public Denied.
18 Play 60, line 15 (from information regarding
Developer beginning of line to Play costs which, if
19 Antitrust before “and today”) revealed to
Litigation, and line 16 (between competitors or
20
Case No. “at just” and “On counterparties, could
21 3:20-cv- another occasion”). cause competitive
05792-JD, harm to Google, and
22 ECF 129 (Ex. which could also cause
B to Cramer confusion for
23
Decl.) investors. (see Cramer
Decl., ¶ 24).
24
25
26
27
28
1 Document Information sought Google’s Proffered Ruling
2 to be sealed Reason for Sealing
3 In re Google Paragraph 176, page Contains non-public Denied.
Play 61, line 23 (between information regarding
4 Developer “scale at” and “people revenues and
Antitrust in”), line 24 (between headcount for
5
Litigation, “larger at” and individual Google
6 Case No. “Revenue per head”), business lines which,
3:20-cv- and line 25 (between if revealed to
7 05792-JD, “gone from” and “-- competitors or
ECF 129 (Ex. but the way”). counterparties, could
8
B to Cramer cause competitive
Decl.) harm to Google, and
9
which could also cause
10 confusion for
investors. (see Cramer
11 Decl., ¶ 25).
12 In re Google Paragraph 180, page Contains non-public Denied.
Play 62, footnote 122, line information regarding
13
Developer 26 beginning after costs which, if
14 Antitrust “figures are” and revealed to
Litigation, ending before “as competitors or
15 Case No. noted,” and line 26.5 counterparties, could
3:20-cv- after “processing costs cause competitive
16 05792-JD, at” to the end of the harm to Google, and
ECF 129 (Ex. sentence. which could also cause
17
B to Cramer confusion for
18 Decl.) investors. (see Cramer
Decl., ¶ 26).
19
In re Google Paragraph 197, page Contains non-public Denied.
20 Play 67, line 24 (beginning information regarding
Developer after “noted above”) to costs which, if
21
Antitrust the end of the sentence revealed to
Litigation, on line 26 (ending competitors or
22
Case No. before “These counterparties, could
23 3:20-cv- companies”). cause competitive
05792-JD, harm to Google, and
24 ECF 129 (Ex. which could also cause
B to Cramer confusion for
25
Decl.) investors. (see Cramer
26 Decl., ¶ 27).
27
28
1 Document Information sought Google’s Proffered Ruling
2 to be sealed Reason for Sealing
3 In re Google Page 26, footnote 63, Contains non-public Granted. The proposed
Play line 23 (between information regarding language may be sealed
4 Developer “between” and “and”), a confidential because it reveals specific
Antitrust line 23.5 (after agreement with a terms with a contractual
5
Litigation, “Google”) to line 24 counterparty which, if counterparty, which could
6 Case No. (before “Google”), revealed to cause significant harm to
3:20-cv- line 24 (after “will competitors or Google’s competitive
7 05792-JD, pay”) to line 24.5 counterparties, could standing.
ECF 129 (Ex. (before “to”), line 25.5 cause competitive
8
B to Cramer (between “from the” harm to both Google
Decl.) and “that”). and the third party.
9
(see Cramer Decl., ¶
10 28).
11 In re Google Paragraph 77, page 26, Contains non-public Denied.
Play line 11 (beginning information regarding
12
Developer after “approximately” confidential business
13 Antitrust and ending before strategies and the
Litigation, “The numbers”). terms of confidential
14 Case No. agreements with
3:20-cv- counterparties which,
15 05792-JD, if revealed to
ECF 129 (Ex. competitors or
16
B to Cramer counterparties, could
17 Decl.) cause competitive
harm to both Google
18 and the third parties.
(see Cramer Decl., ¶
19 29).
20 In re Google Paragraph 93, page 31, Contains non-public Denied.
Play line 16 (between information regarding
21
Developer “Samsung” and a confidential
22 Antitrust “including”). agreement with a
Litigation, counterparty which, if
23 Case No. revealed to
3:20-cv- competitors or
24
05792-JD, counterparties, could
25 ECF 129 (Ex. cause competitive
B to Cramer harm to both Google
26 Decl.) and the third party.
(see Cramer Decl., ¶
27 30).
28
1 Document Information sought Google’s Proffered Ruling
2 to be sealed Reason for Sealing
3 In re Google Paragraph 174, page Contains non-public Denied.
Play 61, line 14 (between information regarding
4 Developer “set at” and “But for”). pricing which, if
Antitrust revealed to
5
Litigation, competitors or
6 Case No. counterparties, could
3:20-cv- cause competitive
7 05792-JD, harm to Google. (see
ECF 129 (Ex. Cramer Decl., ¶ 31).
8
B to Cramer
Decl.)
9
10 CONSUMERS’ FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
11
In re Google Paragraph 82, page 19, Contains non-public Denied.
12 Play line 4 (between information regarding
Consumer “revenues of” and revenue for an
13
Antitrust “accounting”) and line individual Google
14 Litigation, 4 (between “for over” business line which, if
Case No. and “percent”). revealed to
15 3:20-cv- competitors or
05761-JD, counterparties, could
16 ECF 132 (Ex. cause competitive
C to Cramer harm to Google, and
17
Decl.) which could also cause
18 confusion for
investors. (see Cramer
19 Decl., ¶ 33).
20 In re Google Paragraph 88, page 20, Contains non-public Denied.
Play line 25 (between information regarding
21 Consumer “made around” and “in Play revenue data as
Antitrust revenue”) and line 26 well as Google’s
22
Litigation, (between “made estimate of a
23 Case No. around” and “in competitor’s revenue
3:20-cv- sales”). which, if revealed to
24 05761-JD, competitors or
ECF 132 (Ex. counterparties, could
25
C to Cramer cause competitive
Decl.) harm to Google, and
26
which could also cause
27 confusion for
28
1 Document Information sought Google’s Proffered Ruling
2 to be sealed Reason for Sealing
3 investors. (see Cramer
Decl., ¶ 34).
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 In re Google Paragraph 138, page Contains non-public Denied.
Play 31, line 19 (between information regarding
12
Consumer “more than” and “per costs for individual
13 Antitrust year”). Google business lines
Litigation, which, if revealed to
14 Case No. competitors or
3:20-cv- counterparties, could
15 05761-JD, cause competitive
ECF 132 (Ex. harm to Google, and
16
C to Cramer which could also cause
17 Decl.) confusion for
investors. (see Cramer
18 Decl., ¶ 35).
19 In re Google Paragraph 193, page Contains non-public Denied.
Play 44, line 7 (between information regarding
20 Consumer “than the” and costs and profit
Antitrust “revenue share”). margins for an
21
Litigation, individual Google
22 Case No. business line which, if
3:20-cv- revealed to
23 05761-JD, competitors or
ECF 132 (Ex. counterparties, could
24
C to Cramer cause competitive
25 Decl.) harm to Google, and
which could also cause
26 confusion for
investors. (see Cramer
27 Decl., ¶ 36).
28
1 Document Information sought Google’s Proffered Ruling
2 to be sealed Reason for Sealing
3 In re Google Paragraph 87, page 20, Contains non-public Granted. The proposed
Play line 20 (between information regarding language may be sealed
4 Consumer “among other things” confidential business because it reveals specific
Antitrust and “as well”), and strategies with respect terms proposed to a
5
Litigation, line 20 (beginning to potential contractual contractual counterparty,
6 Case No. after “as well as”) to counterparties and, in which could cause
3:20-cv- the end of the particular, specific significant harm to
7 05761-JD, paragraph on line 22. proposed terms of a Google’s competitive
ECF 132 (Ex. contract with a standing.
8
C to Cramer business counterparty
Decl.) which, if revealed to
9
competitors or
10 counterparties, could
cause competitive
11 harm to both Google
and third parties. (see
12
Cramer Decl., ¶ 37).
13
14
15
In re Google Paragraph 109, page Contains non-public Denied.
16 Play 25, line 13 (beginning information regarding
Consumer after “services”) to the the terms of
17 Antitrust end of line 16. confidential
Litigation, agreements with
18
Case No. counterparties which,
19 3:20-cv- if revealed to
05761-JD, competitors or
20 ECF 132 (Ex. counterparties, could
C to Cramer cause competitive
21 Decl.) harm to both Google
and the third parties.
22
(see Cramer Decl., ¶
23 38).
24
25
26
27
28
1 Document Information sought Google’s Proffered Ruling
2 to be sealed Reason for Sealing
3 In re Google Paragraph 129, page Contains non-public Granted in part. The
Play 29, line 23 (between information regarding identity of the contract
4 Consumer “Agreement with” and the terms of a counterparty may be
Antitrust the end of the confidential agreement sealed, because the
5
Litigation, paragraph). with a counterparty disclosure could cause
6 Case No. which, if revealed to significant harm to
3:20-cv- competitors or Google’s competitive
7 05761-JD, counterparties, could standing.
ECF 132 (Ex. cause competitive
8
C to Cramer harm to both Google
Decl.) and the third party.
9
(see Cramer Decl., ¶
10 39).
11 In re Google Paragraph 134, page Contains confidential Denied.
Play 30, line 22 (between negotiations with
12 Consumer “up to” and “of counterparties which,
Antitrust “Play”) and line 22 if revealed to
13
Litigation, (between “up to” and competitors or
14 Case No. “by 2023”). counterparties, could
3:20-cv- cause competitive
15 05761-JD, harm to both Google
ECF 132 (Ex. and the third parties.
16 C to Cramer (see Cramer Decl., ¶
Decl.) 40).
17
In re Google Paragraph 187, page Contains non-public Denied.
18
Play 42, line 24 (beginning information regarding
19 Consumer at “In particular”) to terms offered during
Antitrust the end of the negotiations with a
20 Litigation, sentence. potential contractual
Case No. counterparty which, if
21 3:20-cv- revealed to
05761-JD, competitors or
22
ECF 132 (Ex. counterparties, could
23 C to Cramer cause competitive
Decl.) harm to both Google
24 and the third party.
(see Cramer Decl., ¶
25
41).
26
27
28
1 Document Information sought Google’s Proffered Ruling
2 to be sealed Reason for Sealing
3 In re Google Paragraph 85, page 20, Contains non-public Denied.
Play line 5 (between financial projections
4 Consumer “represented a which, if revealed to
Antitrust potential” and “annual competitors or
5
Litigation, revenue”) and line 6 counterparties, could
6 Case No. (between “[l]oss [of]” cause competitive
3:20-cv- and “of revenue”). harm to Google. (see
7 05761-JD, Cramer Decl., ¶ 42).
ECF 132 (Ex.
8
C to Cramer
Decl.)
9

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10068744. Public record. Not legal advice.