The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10 MASTEROBJECTS, INC.,
11 Plaintiff, No. C 21-05428 WHA
12 v.
13 META PLATFORMS, INC., OMNIBUS ORDER RE MOTIONS TO
SEAL
14 Defendant.
15
16 This omnibus order addresses all remaining motions to seal and associated exhibits (Dkt.
17 Nos. 161, 171, 172, 177, 180, 181, 190, 193, 200, 202, 208, 209, 214, 215, 224, 229, 230, 233,
18 237, 240, 248, 249, 251, 252, 261, 287).
19 There is a strong public policy in favor of openness in our court system and the public is
20 entitled to know to whom we are providing relief (or not). See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of
21 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–80 (9th Cir. 2006). Consequently, access to motions and their
22 attachments that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only
23 upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp.,
24 LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the
25 merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. The compelling
26 reasons standard applies to most judicial records. Evidentiary motions, such as motions in
27 limine and Daubert motions, can be strongly correlative to the merits of a case. Id. at 1098–
1 In addition, sealing motions filed in this district must contain a specific statement that
2 explains: (1) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (2) the injury that
3 will result should sealing be denied; and (3) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not
4 sufficient. The material requested to be sealed must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the
5 sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c). For example, “[t]he publication of materials that could
6 result in infringement upon trade secrets has long been considered a factor that would
7 overcome [the] strong presumption” in favor of access and provide compelling reasons for
8 sealing. Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011). Compelling reasons
9 may also warrant sealing for “sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s
10 competitive standing,” especially where the public has minimal interest in the information. See
11 Nixon v. Warner Comms., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978).
12 Finally, “[s]upporting declarations may not rely on vague boilerplate language or
13 nebulous assertions of potential harm but must explain with particularity why any document or
14 portion thereof remains sealable under the applicable legal standard.” Bronson v. Samsung
15 Elecs. Am., Inc., 2019 WL 7810811, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 28, 2019) (citing Civ. L.R. 79-5).
16 “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain
17 documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are
18 sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c).
19 1. MASTEROBJECTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS.
20 Regarding MasterObjects’ motion for sanctions and related briefing and exhibits, this
21 order rules as follows:
22 Dkt. Document to be Result Reasoning
No. Sealed
23
161-3 MasterObjects’ DENIED. Meta seeks to seal general, technical
24 Motion for information regarding its systems.
Sanctions Meta’s support for sealing is insufficient
25 because it is broad and nonspecific.
Given the nature of the information at
26
issue, Meta does not describe with
27 particularity how disclosure of this
information would cause it competitive
assertion that disclosure would
1
“potentially giv[e] bad actors a roadmap
2 to identifying sensitive information about
Meta’s technical operation of Typeahead
3 and related functionalities” (Dkt. No.
168). Meta references source code, of
4 which there is none cited in this
document. Moreover, Meta’s request
5
encompasses clearly non-sealable
6 material. For example, Meta seeks to
seal the number of source code files
7 produced in discovery (eleven million),
and its Rule 30(b)(6) witness’s testimony
8 regarding the general computer-science
definition of the word “cache.” The
9
request is consequently overbroad. Meta
10 cites no authority indicating why this
high-level information is sealable. See
11 Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., 2015 WL
5012679, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2015)
12 (Judge William H. Orrick). This
information goes to the heart of this
13
litigation, and the public interest
14 outweighs Meta’s interest in keeping the
material sealed.
15 161-4 Hosie Declaration DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-3.
161-5 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-3. Meta seeks
16
Deposition of to seal this transcript on the grounds it
17 William Pei (2022) contains confidential information
regarding its systems. The Rule 30(b)(6)
18 witness described the Typeahead system
in generic terms. Meta does not
19 adequately explain how disclosure of this
high-level information could allow a
20
third-party to understand its system in
21 enough detail that it would cause Meta
competitive harm. Moreover, the request
22 is clearly overbroad, as it includes
testimony regarding general computer-
23 science terms at issue in the litigation,
such as “index” and “cache.”
24
161-6 Smedley DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-3.
25 Declaration
161-7 Transcript of DENIED See entry for Dkt. No. 193-3.
26 Deposition of WITHOUT
William Pei (2020) PREJUDICE.
27
161-8 Internal Agenda GRANTED. Meta seeks to seal internal scheduling
1
information that carries little public
2 interest, public disclosure of which may
cause Meta competitive harm.
3 161-9 Internal Technical GRANTED. Meta seeks to seal detailed, confidential
Documentation information regarding Meta’s systems,
4 public disclosure of which may cause
Meta competitive harm.
5
161-10 Internal Technical GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-9.
6 Documentation
161-11 Internal Brainstorm GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-9.
7 Document
161-12 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. Nos. 161-3 and 161-5.
8
Deposition of Iosef
9 Kaver
161-13 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. Nos. 161-3 and 161-5.
10 Deposition of
Philip Pronin
11 161-14 Excerpt of Meta’s DENIED. Meta seeks to seal an excerpt from its
Responses to responses to MasterObjects’ requests for
12
MasterObjects’ admission in its entirety. The request is
13 Requests for overbroad, as it includes the requests for
Admission admission themselves as well as Meta’s
14 boilerplate objections. Moreover, Meta
does not adequately explain why public
15 disclosure of certain responses could
result in competitive harm. For example,
16
Meta seeks to seal straightforward
17 disavowals that go to the heart of this
litigation, such as “Facebook denies that
18 Typeahead uses one or more server-side
caches containing previous queries.”
19 Meta does not sufficiently explain how
disclosure of such disavowals could
20
cause it competitive harm.
21 161-15 Excerpt of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-14.
MasterObjects’
22 Requests for
Admission
23
161-16 Internal Technical GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-9.
24 Documentation
161-17 Internal Notes GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-9.
25 Document
161-18 Excerpt of Meta’s DENIED. Meta seeks to seal an excerpt of its
26 Responses to responses to MasterObjects’ requests for
MasterObjects’ production in its entirety. The request is
27
Requests for overbroad, as it includes the requests for
boilerplate objections. Moreover, Meta
1
does not adequately explain why public
2 disclosure of certain responses could
result in competitive harm. For example,
3 Meta seeks to seal broad discovery
statements, such as “The accused
4 instrumentality identified by
MasterObjects — Typeahead — is not
5
sold by Facebook. Consequently,
6 Facebook does not collect, analyze, or
generate revenue information for the
7 accused instrumentality. Subject to, as
limited by, and without waiving the
8 foregoing General Objections and
Specific Objections, Facebook will meet
9
and confer with Plaintiff regarding the
10 number of Requests propounded to date.”
Meta does not sufficiently explain how
11 disclosure of such broad discovery
statements could cause it competitive
12 harm.
13
171-3 Meta’s Opposition GRANTED IN This order finds this request justified as
to MasterObjects’ PART and to the diagram on page seven of the
14 Motion for DENIED IN document, disclosure of which could
Sanctions PART. cause Meta competitive harm. The
15 request is otherwise denied. See entry for
Dkt. No. 161-3.
16
171-4 Internal Technical GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-9.
17 Documentation
171-5 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-5.
18 Deposition of
William Pei (2022)
19 171-6 Parties’ Email DENIED. Meta seeks to seal email correspondence
Correspondence between the parties regarding the
20
instrumentalities MasterObjects accused
21 and its alleged failure to provide source-
code disclosures. Meta provides only
22 boilerplate statements regarding how
public disclosure of this information
23 could cause it competitive harm. Meta
has not satisfied its burden of justifying
24
the sealing of this material.
25 171-7 Internal Technical GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-9.
Documentation
26 171-8 Parties’ Email GRANTED. Meta seeks to seal six file paths to source
Correspondence code directories disclosed in
27
correspondence between the parties.
paths themselves for the purpose of this
1
motion practice. The calculus may
2 change, however, in other contexts.
Being narrowly tailored, this order finds
3 the request justified. See Finjan, Inc. v.
Proofpoint, Inc., 2016 WL 7429304, at
4 *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2016) (Judge
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.).
5
171-9 Transcript of DENIED See entry for Dkt. No. 193-3.
6 Deposition of WITHOUT
William Pei (2020) PREJUDICE.
7 171-10 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-12.
Deposition of Iosef
8 Kaver
9
171-11 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-13.
Deposition of
10 Philip Pronin
171-12 Excerpt of Meta’s DENIED. Meta seeks to seal a high-level overview
11 Responses to it provided of its Typeahead system.
MasterObjects’ This description goes to both the heart of
12
Interrogatories this litigation and, importantly, this
13 motion practice, so the public interest
weighs heavily in favor of disclosure.
14 Again, Meta has only provided
boilerplate statements regarding how a
15 high-level description of its system
would result in competitive harm. It also
16
contains no source code, despite Meta
17 asserting that it does. Meta has not
provided compelling reasons to keep this
18 material under seal.
171-13 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. Nos. 161-3 and 161-5.
19 Deposition of
Bobby Zhou
20
171-14 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. Nos. 161-3 and 161-5.
21 Deposition of Ben
Mercure
22 171-15 Parties’ Email DENIED. Meta seeks to seal a passage of email
Correspondence correspondence between the parties,
23
specifically, a two-sentence statement
24 summarizing the testimony of a Rule
30(b)(6) witness. Meta has not
25 adequately explained how this high-level
statement could lead to competitive
26 harm, and it has only provided
boilerplate statements justifying its
27
request. Those justifications fail.
172-2 Parties’ Email DENIED. Meta filed this material conditionally
1
Correspondence under seal, but MasterObjects does not
2 seek to keep it confidential. With no
justification, the motion as to this
3 material is denied.
172-3 Parties’ Email GRANTED IN MasterObjects seeks to seal the name of
4 Correspondence PART and a non-party licensee, disclosure of which
5
DENIED IN could cause both MasterObjects and the
PART. non-party licensee competitive harm
6 (Dkt. No. 183). Crucially, there is little
public interest in this material, which was
7 of only tangential importance to the
merits of the motion for sanctions. This
8 calculus may change, however, in other
contexts. Being narrowly tailored, this
9
order finds the request justified as to the
10 name on page two of the document. The
motion as to the other material Meta
11 conditionally sealed is denied. See entry
for Dkt. No. 172-2.
12
177-3 MasterObjects’ DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-3. Meta’s
Reply in Support request relies on boilerplate justifications
13
of its Motion for and is clearly overbroad. For example,
14 Sanctions Meta seeks to seal the following quoted
testimony, which is clearly not sealable:
15 “Q: Well, most generally, sir, isn’t
typeahead all about sending portions of
16
the query to try to provide predicted
17 relevant responses quickly? *** THE
WITNESS: I do not know.” Meta has
18 not provided compelling reasons to keep
this material under seal.
19 177-4 Transcript of DENIED See entry for Dkt. No. 193-3.
20
Deposition of WITHOUT
William Pei (2020) PREJUDICE.
21 177-5 Transcript of the DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-5.
Deposition of
22 William Pei (2022)
177-6 Excerpt of Meta’s DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 171-12.
23 Responses to
MasterObjects’
24
Interrogatories
25 177-7 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-12.
Deposition of Iosef
26 Kaver
190-3 Transcript of DENIED See entry for Dkt. No. 193-3.
27
Deposition of WITHOUT
190-5 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-5.
1
Deposition of
2 William Pei (2022)
190-7 Excerpt of Meta’s DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 171-12.
3 Responses to
MasterObjects’
4 Interrogatories
5
190-9 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-12.
Deposition of Iosef
6 Kaver
193-3 Transcript of DENIED In several instances, Meta seeks to seal
7 Deposition of WITHOUT excerpts of its Rule 30(b)(6) witness’s
William Pei (2020) PREJUDICE. 2020 deposition transcript on the grounds
8
that it contains confidential information
regarding its systems. All of these
9
requests to seal are overbroad, as a great
10 deal of the material goes to the heart of
this litigation. In light of the detailed
11 content in this document, within
FOURTEEN DAYS of the filing of this
12
order, Meta may submit a revised request
13 that justifies the sealing of any
information that may still be confidential
14 within this transcript and its excerpts.
See Dkt. Nos. 161-7, 171-9, 177-4, 180-
15 10, 190-3, 214-6.
16
193-4 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-5.
Deposition of
17 William Pei (2022)
193-5 Transcript of GRANTED Meta’s request is granted as to the
18 Deposition of Iosef IN PART and intranet URLs on page 58, lines 4, 5, 7,
Kaver DENIED IN and 9. There is little public interest in
19 PART. the intranet URLs themselves for the
purpose of this motion practice.
20
Otherwise, it is denied. See entry for
21 Dkt. No. 161-12.
193-6 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-13.
22 Deposition of
Philip Pronin
23
24
2. META’S MOTION TO STRIKE.
25
Regarding Meta’s motion to strike and related briefing and exhibits, this order rules as
26
follows:
27
Dkt. Document to be Result Reasoning
1
No. Sealed
2 180-3 Meta’s Motion to GRANTED IN MasterObjects seeks to seal information
Strike PART and related to a non-party licensee (Dkt. No.
3 DENIED IN 192). This order finds this request
PART. narrowly tailored and that public
4 disclosure could cause both
MasterObjects and the non-party licensee
5
competitive harm. Crucially, there is
6 little public interest in this material,
which was of only tangential importance
7 to the merits of the motion to strike. This
calculus may change, however, in other
8 contexts. The motion is granted as to the
green highlighted material at page i, line
9
7 and page 4, lines 12–14, as requested.
10 The motion as to other material Meta
conditionally sealed on behalf of
11 MasterObjects is denied. See entry for
Dkt. No. 172-2.
12
Meanwhile, Meta’s sealing request is
13
overbroad, and Meta provides only
14 boilerplate explanations for sealing. For
example, Meta justifies its request by
15 noting the existence of source code in the
document, but no source code is present.
16
Moreover, Meta seeks to seal the identity
17 of the specific accused instrumentalities
yet provides no meaningful justification
18 for such a request. The request fails.
180-4 Transcript of DENIED. Meta seeks to seal this deposition
19 Deposition of transcript on account of alleged details
Jason Ament about its Typeahead system, but it
20
provides only boilerplate justifications.
21 The request is overbroad. The witness is
generally describing the number of
22 Typeahead sessions for the United States,
but Meta provides no explanation of why
23 public disclosure of this and other
information contained in the transcript
24
could lead to competitive harm.
25 180-5 MasterObjects’ GRANTED. Meta seeks to seal detailed, confidential
Infringement information related to its systems,
26 Contentions including source code, public disclosure
of which could cause it competitive
27 harm. This order finds the request
180-6 Expert Report of DENIED Meta’s request to seal this 136-page
1
John Peck WITHOUT expert report in its entirety is clearly
2 PREJUDICE. overbroad, though it is hard to evaluate
because so many pages are blurry. In
3 any event, the document clearly contains
non-sealable material that goes to the
4 heart of this litigation. Meta’s request is
denied. In light of the detailed content in
5
this document, within FOURTEEN DAYS
6 of the filing of this order, Meta may
submit a revised request that justifies the
7 sealing of any information that may still
be confidential.
8 180-7 Internal Technical GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-9.
Documentation
9
180-8 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-12.
10 Deposition of Iosef
Kaver
11 180-9 Declaration of DENIED Meta’s request is overbroad and covers
Trevor Smedley WITHOUT non-sealable material that goes to the
12
PREJUDICE. heart of this litigation. However, in light
13 of the detailed content in this document,
within FOURTEEN DAYS of the filing of
14 this order, Meta may submit a revised
request that justifies the sealing of any
15 information that may still be confidential.
16
180-10 Transcript of DENIED See entry for Dkt. No. 193-3.
Deposition of WITHOUT
17 William Pei (2020) PREJUDICE.
180-11 Reply Declaration DENIED. Meta seeks to seal this declaration
18 of Trevor Smedley excerpt, but the excerpt appears to
contain only information that Dr.
19 Smedley obtained from experiments he
ran on publicly accessible versions of
20
Facebook that anyone could do. Meta
21 has not explained what information here
actually qualifies as confidential and
22 provides only boilerplate justifications.
180-12 Reply Report of DENIED. Meta seeks to seal this one-page reply
23
John Peck report, but it provides only boilerplate
24 explanations. Moreover, the request is
clearly not narrowly tailored. For
25 example, Meta seeks to seal information
such as “I have reviewed Dr. Black’s
26 expert report carefully” and “I have
reviewed Dr. Smedley’s reply declaration
27
in preparing this reply report, and I have
expect to include these points in my
1
testimony prospectively.” Meta’s
2 justifications therefore fail.
180-13 Correspondence DENIED. Meta seeks to seal this brief
3 Between the correspondence but again provides only
Parties boilerplate justifications, some of which
4 are inapplicable, such as the presence of
source code. Moreover, the request is
5
clearly not narrowly tailored, as it seeks
6 to seal the entire document, which is
primarily legal argument that could not
7 lead to competitive harm to Meta.
181-2 MasterObjects’ DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 172-2.
8 Preliminary
Damages
9
Contentions
10 181-3 Meta’s Responsive GRANTED. MasterObjects only seeks to seal material
Damages that pertains to its agreements with non-
11 Contentions party licensees (Dkt. No. 192).
Crucially, there is little public interest in
12
this material for the purpose of this
13 motion practice because it was of only
tangential importance to the merits of the
14 motion to strike. The calculus may
change, however, in other contexts. This
15 order finds MasterObjects’ request
adequately tailored and that public
16
disclosure could cause both
17 MasterObjects and non-party licensees
competitive harm. The motion is granted
18 as to MasterObjects’ requested material.
See entry for Dkt. No. 180-3.
19 181-4 Expert Report of GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 181-3.
William Latham
20
181-5 Mark Smit GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 181-3.
21 Disclosures
Regarding
22 Damages
200-3 MasterObjects’ GRANTED IN Meta seeks to seal material from this
23
Opposition to PART and briefing but only provides a laundry list
24 Motion to Strike DENIED IN of general, boilerplate justifications.
PART. This material goes to the heart of this
25 litigation, so there is a strong public
interest in it. Meta has not adequately
26 shown that disclosure could cause it
competitive harm. Meta incorrectly
27
asserts that its memorandum contains
overbroad and requests to seal
1
information that clearly does not qualify.
2 For example, Meta seeks to seal the fact
that it told MasterObjects it “did not keep
3 the topline TA metrics generated day-
over-day” and that the representative data
4 it produced in discovery would reflect
“terabytes” of data. The request is
5
denied.
6
As to MasterObjects’ material, the
7 request is narrowly tailored and covers
only material public disclosure of which
8 could cause it competitive harm. See
entry for Dkt. No. 180-3. The request is
9
granted.
10 200-4 Transcript of DENIED. Meta provides only boilerplate
Deposition of John justifications for sealing, many of which
11 Black do not apply to this document. For
example, it contains no source code.
12 Moreover, the request is overbroad and
requests to seal information that clearly
13
does not qualify, such as testimony
14 regarding the number of hours Mr. Black
spent reviewing source code, where that
15 source code was located, and how many
files were on the source-code inspection
16
computer.
17 200-5 Excerpt of Meta’s DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 171-12.
Responses to
18 MasterObjects’
Interrogatories
19 200-6 Excerpt of Meta’s DENIED. Meta seeks to seal an excerpt of its
Responses to responses to MasterObjects’
20
MasterObjects’ interrogatories in its entirety. The
21 Interrogatories request is overbroad, as it includes the
interrogatories themselves as well as
22 Meta’s boilerplate objections. Moreover,
Meta does not adequately explain why
23 public disclosure of the responses could
result in competitive harm. For example,
24
Meta seeks to seal broad discovery
25 statements, such as “Facebook will
supplement, amend, and/or modify this
26 response as warranted as discovery
proceeds.” Meta does not sufficiently
27 describe how disclosure of such broad
200-7 Rebuttal Expert DENIED. Meta seeks to seal a rebuttal expert report
1
Report of John excerpt with technical information
2 Black regarding its systems. But the
information in this excerpt goes to the
3 heart of this case, so there is a strong
public interest in disclosure. Meta,
4 moreover, only provides boilerplate
justifications for sealing this material.
5
Meta references source code, of which
6 there is none in this document, only
citations to “FB_SOURCE_CODE[.]”
7 Meta does not adequately explain how
this high-level information is sealable.
8 See Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., 2015
WL 5012679, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24,
9
2015) (Judge William H. Orrick). The
10 public interest outweighs Meta’s interest
in keeping this material sealed.
11 200-8 Correspondence DENIED. Meta provides only boilerplate
Between the justifications for sealing, many of which
12 Parties do not apply to this document. For
example, this document contains no
13
source code. Moreover, the request is
14 overbroad and clearly encompasses non-
sealable material, such as generic
15 discovery quibbles. Given the nature of
the information at issue, Meta does not
16
describe with particularity how
17 disclosure would cause it competitive
harm. It merely provides the generic
18 assertion that disclosure would
“potentially giv[e] bad actors a roadmap
19 to identifying sensitive information about
Meta’s technical operation of Typeahead
20
and related functionalities” (Dkt.
21 No. 211).
200-9 Correspondence DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 200-8.
22 Between the
Parties
23 200-10 Correspondence DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 200-8.
Between the
24
Parties
25 200-11 Correspondence DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 200-8.
Between the
26 Parties
200-12 Correspondence DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 200-8.
27
Between the
200-13 Transcript of DENIED. Meta provides only boilerplate
1
Deposition of justifications to seal this one-page
2 Michael Rothschild transcript excerpt that do not directly
address the material in question. Meta
3 has not adequately explained how
disclosure could lead to competitive
4 harm.
5
200-14 Correspondence DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 200-8.
Between the
6 Parties
200-15 Correspondence DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 200-8.
7 Between the
Parties
8
200-16 Correspondence DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 200-8.
Between the
9
Parties
10 200-17 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 200-13.
Deposition of Ben
11 Mercure
200-18 Correspondence DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 200-8.
12
Between the
13 Parties
200-19 Rebuttal Expert GRANTED. MasterObjects seeks to seal information
14 Report of Lauren related to non-party licensees from the
R. Kindler table of contents of a rebuttal expert
15 report. Crucially, there is little public
interest in this material for the purpose of
16
this motion practice because it was of
17 only tangential importance to the merits
of the motion to strike. This order finds
18 MasterObjects’ request adequately
tailored and that public disclosure could
19 cause both MasterObjects and non-party
licensees competitive harm. The
20
calculus may change, however, in other
21 contexts.
200-20 Excerpt of Meta’s GRANTED IN The motion is granted as to
22 Responses to PART and MasterObjects’ requested material.
MasterObjects’ DENIED IN Again, there is little public interest in this
23
Interrogatories PART. material for the purpose of this motion
24 practice, and the calculus may change in
other contexts. This order finds
25 MasterObjects’ request adequately
tailored and that public disclosure could
26 cause both MasterObjects and non-party
licensees competitive harm. Otherwise,
27
the request is denied. See entry for Dkt.
202-3 MasterObjects’ GRANTED IN See entry for Dkt. No. 200-3.
1
Opposition to PART and
2 Motion to Strike DENIED IN
PART.
3 202-4 Rebuttal Expert GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 200-19.
Report of Lauren
4 R. Kindler
5
202-5 Excerpt of Meta’s GRANTED IN See entry for Dkt. No. 200-20.
Responses to PART and
6 MasterObjects’ DENIED IN
Interrogatories PART.
7 214-3 Meta’s Reply in GRANTED IN MasterObjects seeks to seal the identity
Support of its PART and of a non-party licensee (Dkt. No. 220).
8
Motion to Strike DENIED IN The proposed redaction is narrowly
9
PART. tailored, and public disclosure of the
information could result in competitive
10 harm to MasterObjects and the non-party
licensee. Once more, there is little public
11 interest in this material for the purpose of
this motion practice, and the calculus
12
may change in other contexts. The
13 motion is accordingly granted as to the
green highlighted portion of page 7, line
14 10. See entry for Dkt. No. 180-3.
15 Meta has not adequately shown that
disclosure of its proposed redactions
16
involving, for instance, the names of the
17 top-level folders on the source-code
inspection computer, could cause it
18 competitive harm.
214-4 Transcript of DENIED. Meta provides only boilerplate
19 Deposition of John justifications for sealing, many of which
Peck do not apply to this document, let alone
20
the highlighted material. Meta has not
21 adequately shown that disclosure could
cause it competitive harm.
22 214-5 Transcript of GRANTED IN Meta’s request is granted as to the name
Deposition of PART and of the source code method at page 28,
23 Trevor Smedley DENIED IN line 2, and the file name at line 6. There
24
PART. is little public interest in the names
themselves for the purpose of this motion
25 practice. Otherwise, it is denied. The
remaining material goes to the heart of
26 this litigation, so there is a strong public
interest in it. Meta has not adequately
27
shown that disclosure could cause it
214-6 Transcript of DENIED See entry for Dkt. No. 193-3.
1
Deposition of WITHOUT
2 William Pei (2020) PREJUDICE.
214-7 Transcript of GRANTED IN Meta’s request is granted as to the name
3 Deposition of PART and of the source code methods at page 132
Trevor Smedley DENIED IN of the transcript, lines 18 and 22. There
4 PART. is little public interest in the names
themselves for the purpose of this motion
5
practice. Otherwise, Meta’s request is
6 denied. See entry for Dkt. No. 200-7.
214-8 Rebuttal Expert GRANTED IN Meta’s request is granted only as to the
7 Report of John PART and names of source code methods, classes,
Black DENIED IN and files, as well as source code line
8 PART. numbers, that appear in Section X.B of
the report. There is little public interest in
9
the names and line numbers themselves
10 for the purpose of this motion practice.
Otherwise, Meta’s request is denied. See
11 entry for Dkt. Nos. 200-7.
214-9 Excerpt of Meta’s DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 171-12.
12
Responses to
13 MasterObjects’
Interrogatories
14 215-2 Meta’s Reply in GRANTED IN See entry for Dkt. No. 214-3.
Support of its PART and
15 Motion to Strike DENIED IN
16
PART.
248-4 Rebuttal Expert GRANTED. MasterObjects here seeks to seal the
17 Report of Lauren entirety of a rebuttal expert report with
R. Kindler confidential material, public disclosure of
18 which may cause MasterObjects and
non-party licensees competitive harm.
19 Elsewhere, however, MasterObjects has
allowed the disclosure of a redacted
20
version of the entire document, as well as
21 a redacted excerpt. See entry for Dkt.
Nos. 200-19, 239-8. Accordingly, the
22 public interest in this material has been
served elsewhere. The motion is granted
23 as to this document.
24 249-4 Transcript of GRANTED MasterObjects seeks to seal information
Deposition of IN PART and that relates to non-party licensees. This
25 Mark Smit DENIED IN order grants the motion with respect to
PART. the highlighted content at page 55 of the
26 transcript, lines 2–4, because disclosure
of this material could cause
27
MasterObjects and non-party licensees
180-3. Otherwise, MasterObjects’
1
request is denied because it is overbroad.
2 That MasterObjects has entered into
plural “settlements,” for example, is not
3 confidential.
249-5 Transcript of GRANTED. The motion is granted as to
4 Deposition of MasterObjects’ requested material. This
Mark Smit order finds MasterObjects’ request
5
adequately tailored and that public
6 disclosure could cause both
MasterObjects and a non-party licensee
7 competitive harm. See entry for Dkt. No.
200-19.
8 249-6 Transcript of GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 249-5.
Deposition of
9
Mark Smit
10 249-7 Transcript of DENIED. MasterObjects’ request to seal this three-
Deposition of line answer is denied. That
11 William MasterObjects is “now in the licensing
Hassebrock business” is not confidential. Disclosure
12
of this fact, and the corollary that
13 MasterObjects has “received some
significant license revenue,” will not
14 cause competitive harm.
249-8 Rebuttal Expert GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 248-4.
15 Report of Lauren MasterObjects seeks to seal information
R. Kindler from this 59-page expert report, which
16
discusses non-party licensees at great
17 length. This order finds MasterObjects’
request narrowly tailored and that public
18 disclosure could cause both
MasterObjects and non-party licensees
19 competitive harm. Crucially, there is
little public interest in this material for
20
the purpose of this motion practice
21 because it was of only tangential
importance to the merits of the motion to
22 strike. This calculus may change,
however, in other contexts. See entry for
23 Dkt. No. 181-3.
24
249-9 Transcript of GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 249-5.
Deposition of
25 Mark Smit
26 3. META’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
27 Regarding Meta’s motion for summary judgment and related briefing and exhibits, this
Dkt. Document to be Result Reasoning
1
No. Sealed
2 208-3 Meta’s Motion for DENIED. Meta seeks to seal general information
Summary regarding its pre-suit knowledge of the
3 Judgment patents, an issue it put in dispute with its
summary judgment motion. Meta
4 provides only boilerplate explanations
that are not even applicable to this
5
content, such as how disclosure would
6 “potentially giv[e] bad actors a roadmap
to identifying sensitive information about
7 Meta’s technical operation of Typeahead
and related functionalities.” Meta’s
8 justifications fail.
9
208-4 Exhibits Filed in MOOT. Meta filed a notice of errata and refiled
208-5 Connection with these exhibits to comply with the case
10 208-6 Meta’s Motion for management order (see Dkt. No. 227).
208-7 Summary The sealing motion regarding these
11 208-8 Judgment documents is accordingly moot.
12 208-9
208-10
13 208-11
208-12
14
208-13
15 208-14
208-15
16 208-16
17 208-17
208-18
18 208-19
208-20
19
229-1 Expert Report of DENIED. Meta seeks to seal material in this expert
20 John Peck report involving “What [Typeahead]
Sends Publicly in Making a [Typeahead]
21 Call to its Server-Side.” It appears
anyone could access this information
22 regarding the technical details of
messages the Facebook client on a
23
computer or phone sends to Meta’s
24 server. Meta does not explain how
public disclosure of this information
25 could cause it competitive harm and
provides only boilerplate explanations,
26 such as how disclosure would
“potentially giv[e] bad actors a roadmap
27
to identifying sensitive information about
Meta’s technical operation of Typeahead
1
and related functionalities.”
2 229-2 Rebuttal Expert DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 200-7.
Report of John
3 Black
229-3 Transcript of GRANTED IN Meta’s request is granted as to the name
4 Deposition of PART and of the source code method at page 236 of
5
Trevor Smedley DENIED IN the transcript, line 17. There is little
PART. public interest in the name itself for the
6 purpose of this motion practice.
Otherwise, the request is denied. See
7 entry for Dkt. No. 200-7.
229-4 Transcript of GRANTED IN Meta seeks to seal deposition transcript
8
Deposition of PART and language involving certain prior
9
David von Bargen DENIED IN litigation and settlements between Meta
PART. and non-party licensees. There is little
10 public interest in these passages for the
purpose of this motion practice, which is
11 outweighed by the threat of competitive
harm to Meta and non-party licensees.
12
The motion is granted for the proposed
13 redactions up until page 25 of the
transcript, line 3. This calculus may
14 change, however, in other contexts.
Meanwhile, the motion is denied for the
15 remaining proposed redactions, which
involve high-level information about
16
Meta’s use of outside counsel for patent
17 prosecution. That Meta uses outside
counsel for patent prosecution is not
18 confidential, and it is unclear how such
high-level information could cause Meta
19 competitive harm. This information goes
to pre-suit knowledge of the patents, an
20
issue Meta put in dispute with its
21 summary judgment motion.
229-5 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 229-4. Meta seeks
22 Deposition of to seal high-level information about its
Matthew Avery use of outside counsel for patent
23 prosecution. That Meta uses outside
counsel for patent prosecution is not
24
confidential, and it is unclear how such
25 information could cause Meta
competitive harm. Such information
26 goes to pre-suit knowledge of the patents,
an issue Meta put in dispute with its
27 summary judgment motion.
229-6 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 229-5.
1
Deposition of
2 Christopher King
229-7 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 229-5.
3 Deposition of
Henry Tang
4 233-4 MasterObjects’ DENIED. Meta seeks to seal information in
Opposition to MasterObjects’ opposition brief to a
5
Meta’s Motion for dispositive motion Meta filed. This
6 Summary information goes to the heart of the case,
Judgment so there is a strong public interest in
7 disclosure. Meta, moreover, only
provides boilerplate justifications for
8 sealing this material, such as how
disclosure would “potentially giv[e] bad
9
actors a roadmap to identifying sensitive
10 information about Meta’s technical
operation of Typeahead and related
11 functionalities.” Meta does not
adequately explain how high-level
12
information contained in this document is
sealable. Moreover, Meta’s request is
13
overbroad and clearly includes non-
14 sealable material, such as the fact that
Meta relies on outside counsel to handle
15 patent prosecution work. The public
interest outweighs Meta’s interest in
16
keeping the material sealed.
17 233-5 Transcript of DENIED. Meta seeks to seal deposition transcript
Deposition of language. This information goes to the
18 Markus Messner- heart of this case, so there is a strong
Chaney public interest in disclosure. Meta,
19 moreover, only provides boilerplate
justifications for sealing this material.
20
233-6 Rebuttal Expert DENIED. Meta seeks to seal expert opinion
21 Report of John material regarding the validity of the
Peck patents-in-suit but does not explain how
22 this analysis addresses its system such
that disclosure could result in
23 competitive harm. Patents are publicly
available documents. With no
24
explanation, only boilerplate
25 justifications, this request fails.
233-7 Excerpt of Meta’s DENIED. Meta seeks to seal an excerpt of its
26 Responses to responses to MasterObjects’
MasterObjects’ interrogatories. This information goes to
27
Interrogatories the heart of this litigation and also
Meta’s system. It is unclear how
1
disclosure could result in competitive
2 harm to Meta. Meta does not explain and
only provides boilerplate justifications.
3 233-8 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 229-5.
Deposition of
4 Matthew Avery
5
233-9 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 229-5.
Deposition of
6 Christopher King
233-10 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 229-5.
7 Deposition of
Henry Tang
8
240-3 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 229-5.
9 Deposition of
Christopher King
10 240-4 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 229-5.
Deposition of
11 Matthew Avery
12
4. META’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERTS.
13
Regarding Meta’s motion to exclude experts and related briefing and exhibits, this order
14
rules as follows:
15
Dkt. Document to be Result Reasoning
16
No. Sealed
17 209-2 N/A GRANTED. No ruling was made on this motion prior
209-3 to termination of the litigation, so the
18 209-4 public interest in this material is de
209-5 minimis.
19
209-6
20 209-7
209-8
21
209-9
22 209-10
209-11
23 209-12
209-13
24
209-14
25 209-15
209-16
26 230-1
27 237-4
237-5
251-3
1
252-2
2 261-2
261-3
3
4 5. MISCELLANEOUS FILINGS.
5 Regarding these miscellaneous filings, this order rules as follows:
6 Dkt. Document to be Result Reasoning
No. Sealed
7
224-2 Meta’s Submission DENIED. Meta filed this material conditionally
8 Regarding Claim under seal, but MasterObjects does not
Construction Issues seek to keep it confidential (Dkt. No.
9 in Related Case 235). With no justification, the motion
as to this material is denied.
10
287-3 MasterObjects’ GRANTED. MasterObjects filed this document in
11 Response to response to the Court’s request for
Request for information regarding why
12 Information MasterObjects sought to seal one non-
party’s name in some instances but not in
13 others. Given that MasterObjects’
request to seal is narrowly tailored, and
14
that public interest in this information is
15 minimal for the purpose of this motion
practice, the motion to seal is granted
16 with request to MasterObjects’ proposed
redactions. This calculus may change,
17 however, in other contexts.
18
287-4 Requested GRANTED. MasterObjects filed this document in
Correspondence response to the Court’s request for
19 with Non-Party “correspondence in which the non-party
Licensee licensees ‘recently expressed [their]
20 desire that MasterObjects seek to seal
material related to their respective
21 agreements with MasterObjects.’” Given
that MasterObjects’ request to seal is
22
narrowly tailored, and that public interest
23 in this information is minimal for the
purpose of this motion practice, the
24 motion to seal is granted with request to
MasterObjects’ proposed redactions.
25
This calculus may change, however, in
other contexts.
26
287-5 Requested GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 287-4.
27 Correspondence
with Non-Party
1 287-6 Requested GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 287-4.
Correspondence
2 with Non-Party
Licensee
3
4 CONCLUSION
5 In sum, the motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. With respect to
6 motions to seal that this order denied without prejudice, revised requests may be submitted that
7 justify sealing any information that may still be confidential within FOURTEEN Days. All other
8 documents shall be refiled in full compliance with this order no later than MAY 19, 2023,
9 at 12:00 P.M.
10 IT IS SO ORDERED.
11 Dated: February 7, 2023.
12
13 =
LLIAM ALSUP
14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
©
15
16
= 17
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28