The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10 GOOGLE LLC,
11 Plaintiff, No. C 20-06754 WHA
12 v.
13 SONOS, INC., OMNIBUS ORDER RE MOTIONS TO
SEAL
14 Defendant.
15
16 This order addresses pending motions to seal filed in connection with the patent
17 showdown procedure, including Sonos’s claim construction brief (Dkt. No. 203), Sonos’s
18 patent showdown motion for summary judgment (Dkt. Nos. 209, 247–48, 273), Sonos’s
19 accompanying motion to strike (Dkt. Nos. 220, 253, 265), Google’s patent showdown motion
20 for summary judgment (Dkt. Nos. 210, 221, 252, 276–77), related submissions by both parties
21 (Dkt. Nos. 296, 313, 321–22, 329), and responses to the Court’s order to show cause (Dkt.
22 Nos. 346–48, 350).
23 1. THE LEGAL STANDARD.
24 There is a strong public policy in favor of openness in our court system and the public is
25 entitled to know to whom we are providing relief (or not). See Kamakana v. City & Cty. of
26 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–80 (9th Cir. 2006). Consequently, access to motions and their
27 attachments that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only
1 LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). But a good cause standard applies to the sealing
2 of documents that are unrelated or only tangentially related to the underlying claim. Id. at
3 1098–99. “For good cause to exist, the party seeking protection bears the burden of showing
4 specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.” Phillips ex rel. Ests. of
5 Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002).
6 In addition, sealing motions filed in this district must contain a specific statement that
7 explains: (1) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (2) the injury that
8 will result should sealing be denied; and (3) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not
9 sufficient. The material requested to be sealed must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the
10 sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(c). For example, “[t]he publication of materials that could
11 result in infringement upon trade secrets has long been considered a factor that would
12 overcome [the] strong presumption” in favor of access and provide compelling reasons for
13 sealing. Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011). Compelling reasons
14 may also warrant sealing for “sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s
15 competitive standing,” especially where the public has “minimal interest” in the information
16 because it “is not necessary to the public’s understanding of the case.” See Nixon v. Warner
17 Comms., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978).
18 Finally, “[s]upporting declarations may not rely on vague boilerplate language or
19 nebulous assertions of potential harm but must explain with particularity why any document or
20 portion thereof remains sealable under the applicable legal standard.” Bronson v. Samsung
21 Elecs. Am., Inc., 2019 WL 7810811, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 28, 2019) (citing Civ. L.R. 79-5).
22 “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain
23 documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are
24 sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c).
25 2. SONOS’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF.
26 Sonos, with Google’s support, filed conditionally under seal an exhibit to its claim
27 construction brief containing Google’s responses to Sonos’s first set of interrogatories (Dkt.
1 redactions (Dkt. Nos. 213–14). The redactions, however, are directed toward the term
2 “videoID” and related information that was central to the merits in the Court’s order on
3 summary judgment and claim construction (see Dkt. No. 316 at 8–9). Moreover, Google has
4 merely offered generic, boilerplate explanations as to why public disclosure of this information
5 would result in competitive harm. The public interest in understanding the merits of this case
6 therefore outweighs Google’s asserted interested in confidentiality. The motion is DENIED.
7 3. SONOS’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
8 Both parties have filed motions to seal in connection with Sonos’s motion for summary
9 judgment (Dkt. Nos. 209, 247–48, 273). Upon review, this order rules as follows:
10
Dkt. Document to be Result Reasoning
11
No. Sealed
12 209-2 Sonos’s Motion for DENIED. Google seeks to seal general, technical
Summary information regarding its systems (Dkt.
13 Judgment Nos. 215–16). Google’s support for
sealing is insufficient because it is
14 overbroad and nonspecific. Given the
nature of the information at issue, Google
15
does not describe with particularity how
16 disclosure of this general information
would cause it competitive harm. It
17 merely provides the generic assertion that
“competitors could use these details
18 regarding the architecture and
functionality of Google’s products to
19
gain a competitive advantage in the
20 marketplace with respect to their
competing products” (Ma Decl. ¶ 5).
21 Google further references source code,
but there is none in the document.
22 Google cites no authority indicating why
this high-level information is sealable.
23
See Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., 2015
24 WL 5012679, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24,
2015) (Judge William H. Orrick). This
25 information goes to the very heart of this
litigation, and the particularly strong
26
public interest here outweighs Google’s
27 interest in keeping the material sealed.
209-3 Almeroth Decl. GRANTED IN The request is GRANTED as to the
DENIED IN 25, 143–44, and 158–59, which contain
1
PART. source code. The request is otherwise
2 DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 209-2.
209-4 Exh. B to Smith DENIED. Google asks to seal redacted portions of
3 Decl. its response to Sonos’s interrogatories on
the grounds it contains confidential
4 information regarding its systems. The
response describes Google’s speaker
5
group system in generic terms. Google
6 does not adequately explain how
disclosure of this high-level information
7 could allow a third-party to understand
its system in enough detail that it would
8 cause Google competitive harm.
9
209-5 Exh. D to Smith GRANTED. Google seeks to seal detailed,
Decl. confidential information regarding
10 Google’s systems, public disclosure of
which may cause Google competitive
11 harm.
209-6 Exh. F to Smith GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 209-5.
12
Decl.
13 209-7 Exh. G to Smith GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 209-5.
Decl.
14 209-8 Exh. H to Smith GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 209-5. However,
Decl. the exhibit should be resubmitted with
15 Google’s proposed tailored redactions.
See Dkt. No. 216-2.
16
209-9 Exh. I to Smith GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 209-5.
17 Decl.
209-10 Exh. L to Smith DENIED. Google asks to seal its responses to
18 Decl. Sonos’s requests for admission on the
grounds they contain confidential
19
information regarding its systems. The
20 request is overbroad. Moreover,
Google’s responses describe Google’s
21 speaker group system in generic terms.
Google does not adequately explain how
22 disclosure of this high-level information
could allow a third-party to understand
23
its system in enough detail that it would
24 cause Google competitive harm.
209-11 Exh. M to Smith GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 209-5.
25 Decl.
209-12 Exh. N to Smith DENIED. Google seeks seeks to seal this transcript
26 Decl. on the grounds it contains confidential
information regarding its systems and
27
that it is subject to a protective order in a
described the system in generic terms.
1
Google does not adequately explain how
2 disclosure of this high-level information
could allow a third-party to understand
3 its system in enough detail that it would
cause Google competitive harm.
4 Moreover, the request is clearly
overbroad. That the information is
5
subject to a protective order alone is
6 insufficient to warrant sealing.
209-13 Exh. O to Smith DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 209-12.
7 Decl.
209-14 Exh. P to Smith GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 209-5.
8 Decl.
9
209-15 Exh. Q to Smith GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 209-5.
Decl.
10 247-3; Google’s GRANTED IN Google asks to seal portions of its
248-3 Opposition PART AND opposition brief. Google also asks to
11 DENIED IN seal portions of its opposition on behalf
PART. of Sonos, but Sonos clarified in a later
12
filing that it “does not seek to redact or
13 file under seal any portion of Google’s
Opposition” (Dkt. No. 260 at ¶ 7).
14
Google’s request is GRANTED as to
15 Google’s discussion of its confidential
presentation on pages 24–25, disclosure
16
of which may cause Google competitive
17 harm.
18 The request is otherwise DENIED.
Google seeks to seal general, technical
19 information regarding its systems.
Google’s support for sealing this
20
additional material is insufficient because
21 it is overbroad and nonspecific. Given
the nature of the information at issue,
22 Google does not describe with
particularity how disclosure of this
23 general information would cause it
competitive harm. It merely provides the
24
generic assertion that “competitors could
25 use these details regarding the
architecture and functionality of
26 Google’s products to gain a competitive
advantage in the marketplace with
27 respect to their competing products”
references source code, but there is none
1
in the document. Google cites no
2 authority indicating why this high-level
information is sealable. See Finjan, Inc.
3 v. Sophos, Inc., 2015 WL 5012679, at *5
(N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2015) (Judge
4 William H. Orrick). This information
goes to the very heart of this litigation,
5
and the particularly strong public interest
6 here outweighs Google’s interest in
keeping the material sealed.
7 247-4 Schonfeld Decl. GRANTED IN The request is GRANTED as to the image
PART AND of source code in paragraphs 36 and 40,
8 DENIED IN disclosure of which may cause Google
9
PART. competitive harm. The request is
otherwise DENIED. See entry for Dkt.
10 No. 247-3.
11 247-5 Exh. 1 to Kaplan DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 247-3.
Decl.
12
247-6; Exh. 4 to Kaplan GRANTED. Both parties seek to seal detailed,
13 248-5 Decl. confidential information regarding
Google and Sonos systems, public
14 disclosure of which may cause Google
and Sonos competitive harm.
15 247-7 Exh. 5 to Kaplan GRANTED. Google seeks to seal detailed,
Decl. confidential information regarding
16
Google’s systems, public disclosure of
17 which may cause Google competitive
harm.
18 247-8 Exh. 8 to Kaplan GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 247-7.
Decl.
19 247-9 Exh. 9 to Kaplan GRANTED IN The request is GRANTED as to the image
20
Decl. PART AND of source code on page 323, disclosure of
DENIED IN which may cause Google competitive
21 PART. harm. The request is otherwise DENIED.
See entry for Dkt. No. 247-3.
22
247-10 Exh. 10 to Kaplan GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 247-7.
23
Decl.
24 248-4 Exh. 3 to Kaplan DENIED. Google filed a motion to seal this exhibit
Decl. on behalf of Sonos, but Sonos clarified in
25 its supporting declaration that it does not
seek to seal this material (Dkt. Nos. 260–
26 61).
27
248-6 Exh. 7 to Kaplan DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 248-4.
Decl.
273-1 Exh. R DENIED. Google’s support for sealing this
1
additional material is insufficient because
2 it is overbroad and nonspecific. Given
the nature of the information at issue,
3 Google does not describe with
particularity how disclosure of this
4 general information would cause it
competitive harm. It merely provides the
5
generic assertion that “competitors could
6 use these details regarding the
architecture and functionality of
7 Google’s products to gain a competitive
advantage in the marketplace with
8 respect to their competing products” (Ma
Decl. ¶ 5). Google further references
9
source code, but there is none in the
10 document. Google cites no authority
indicating why this high-level
11 information is sealable. See Finjan, Inc.
v. Sophos, Inc., 2015 WL 5012679, at *5
12 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2015) (Judge
William H. Orrick). This information
13
goes to the very heart of this litigation,
14 and the particularly strong public interest
here outweighs Google’s interest in
15 keeping the material sealed.
273-2 Exh. S DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 273-1.
16
273-4 Sonos’s Reply DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 273-1.
17
4. GOOGLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
18
Both parties have filed motions to seal in connection with Google’s motion for summary
19
judgment (Dkt. Nos. 210, 221, 252, 276–77). Upon review, this order rules as follows:
20
21 Dkt. Document to be Result Reasoning
No. Sealed
22 210-3 Exh. 1 DENIED Google asks to seal the entirety of its
WITHOUT fifty-four page expert report (Hefazi
23
PREJUDICE. Decl.). This is overbroad, particularly as
24 swaths of the report go to the merits of
Google’s motion and Google has merely
25 offered a boilerplate justification for
sealing. The request is denied without
26 prejudice. Google may file a renewed
submission with narrowly tailored
27
redactions, but should bear in mind that a
specific, compelling reasons for sealing
1
is likely to be rejected.
2
210-4 Exh. 2 GRANTED. Google seeks to seal detailed,
3 confidential information regarding
Google’s systems, public disclosure of
4 which may cause Google competitive
harm (Hefazi Decl. ¶ 4).
5
210-5 Exh. 3 GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 210-4.
6 210-6 Exh. 4 GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 210-4.
210-7 Exh. 5 GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 210-4.
7 210-8 Exh. 6 GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 210-4.
8
210-9 Exh. 8 GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 210-4.
210-10 Exh. 10 GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 210-4.
9 210-11 Exh. 11 DENIED. Google asks to seal a declaration from
one of its engineers. This declaration
10 was discussed in the Court’s order on
summary judgment, so there is a strong
11
interest in public disclosure. Moreover,
12 the information revealed in the
declaration relates to generic technical
13 information from technology that is more
than a decade old. Further, the
14 declaration merely includes locations of
source code and not source code itself.
15
In light of the foregoing, Google’s
16 boilerplate justification for sealing is not
sufficient to warrant sealing. The request
17 is denied.
210-12 Exh. 13 (Schonfeld GRANTED IN The request is GRANTED as to the image
18
Decl.) PART AND of source code in paragraphs 28 and 29,
19 DENIED IN disclosure of which may cause Google
PART. competitive harm. The request is
20 otherwise DENIED. See entry for Dkt.
No. 210-15.
21
22
210-13 Exh. 19 GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 210-4.
210-14 Exh. 20 GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 210-4.
23 210-15 Google’s Motion GRANTED IN First, Google asks to seal a quote from a
for Summary PART AND Sonos engineer on the first page of its
24 Judgment DENIED IN motion. Google does not offer any
PART. compelling justification for this request.
25
The request is denied.
26
Second, Google generally seeks to seal
27 technical information regarding its
systems (Hefazi Decl). The request is
the “Cloud Queue API” on pages 14:10–
1
15:4, public disclosure of which could
2 cause Google competitive harm.
3 The request is otherwise DENIED as to
the remainder of the brief. Google’s
4 support for sealing is insufficient because
it is overbroad and nonspecific. Given
5
the nature of the information at issue,
6 Google does not describe with
particularity how disclosure of this
7 general information would cause it
competitive harm. It merely provides the
8 generic assertion that “competitors could
use these details regarding the
9
architecture and functionality of
10 Google’s products to gain a competitive
advantage in the marketplace with
11 respect to their competing products”
(Hefazi Decl. ¶ 4). Google further
12 references source code, but there is none
in the document other than that described
13
above. Google cites no authority
14 indicating why this high-level
information is sealable. See Finjan, Inc.
15 v. Sophos, Inc., 2015 WL 5012679, at *5
(N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2015) (Judge
16 William H. Orrick).
17
Were the Court to seal this information,
18 the motion would be virtually
incomprehensible to the public.
19 Moreover, much of the information was
central to the Court’s order on summary
20
judgment (Dkt. No. 316). In short, this
21 information goes to the very heart of this
litigation, and the particularly strong
22 public interest here outweighs Google’s
interest in keeping the material sealed.
23 221-3 Google’s Corrected GRANTED IN See entry for Dkt. No. 210-15.
Motion PART AND
24
DENIED IN
25 PART.
252-2 Sonos’s Opposition DENIED. Google seeks to seal descriptions of
26 technical information regarding its
systems (Ma Decl.). Google’s support
27 for sealing is insufficient because it is
nature of the information at issue, Google
1
does not describe with particularity how
2 disclosure of this general information
would cause it competitive harm. It
3 merely provides the generic assertion that
“competitors could use these details
4 regarding the architecture and
functionality of Google’s products to
5
gain a competitive advantage in the
6 marketplace with respect to their
competing products” (Ma Decl. ¶ 5).
7 Google further references source code,
but there is none in the document.
8 Google cites no authority indicating why
this high-level information is sealable,
9
particularly as much of the information
10 relates to technology that is more than a
decade old. See Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos,
11 Inc., 2015 WL 5012679, at *5 (N.D. Cal.
Aug. 24, 2015) (Judge William H.
12 Orrick).
13
Were the Court to seal this information,
14 the motion would be virtually
incomprehensible to the public.
15 Moreover, much of the information was
central to the Court’s order on summary
16 judgment (Dkt. No. 316). In short, this
information goes to the very heart of this
17
litigation, and the particularly strong
18 public interest here outweighs Google’s
interest in keeping the material sealed.
19 252-3 Exh. 1 to Boyea DENIED Google asks to seal significant swaths of
Decl. (Schmidt WITHOUT Sonos’s expert report (Ma Decl.). The
20
Decl.) PREJUDICE. request is overbroad, particularly as
21 much of the report go to the merits of
Google’s motion and Google has merely
22 offered a boilerplate justification for
sealing. The request is denied without
23 prejudice. Google may file a renewed
submission with narrowly tailored
24
redactions, but should bear in mind that a
25 renewed request that fails to offer
specific, compelling reasons for sealing
26 is likely to be rejected.
27 252-4 Exh. 2 to Boyea GRANTED. Google seeks to seal detailed,
Google’s systems, public disclosure of
1
which may cause Google competitive
2 harm (Ma Decl. ¶ 5).
252-5 Exh. 3 to Boyea GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 252-4.
3 Decl.
252-6 Exh. 4 to Boyea GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 252-4.
4 Decl.
5
252-7 Exh. 7 to Boyea GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 252-4.
Decl.
6 252-8 Exh. 9 to Boyea DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 252-2.
Decl.
7 252-9 Exh. 10 to Boyea GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 252-4.
Decl.
8
252-10 Exh. 11 to Boyea DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 252-2.
9 Decl.
252-11 Exh. 12 to Boyea DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 252-2.
10 Decl.
252-12 Exh. 13 to Boyea DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 252-2.
11 Decl.
12
252-13 Exh. 14 to Boyea DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 252-2.
Decl.
13 252-14 Exh. 15 to Boyea DENIED. Sonos filed a motion to seal this exhibit
Decl. on behalf of Google, but Google clarified
14 in its supporting declaration that it does
not seek to seal this material (Dkt. No.
15
262).
16 252-15 Exh. 16 to Boyea DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 252-2.
Decl.
17 276-3 Google’s Reply DENIED. Google’s justifications for sealing
portions of its reply do not warrant
18 sealing for the same reasons described
above with respect to its motion and
19
Sonos’s opposition. See entry for Dkt.
20 No. 252-2.
276-4; Exh. 1 to Hefazi DENIED. Sonos and Google both seek to redact
21 277-3 Decl. portions of Google’s expert declaration.
The redactions sought to be sealed
22
describe Sonos and Google’s systems in
23 generic terms. Neither Sonos nor Google
adequately explain how disclosure of this
24 high-level information could allow a
third-party to understand its system in
25 enough detail that it would cause either
party competitive harm. The information
26
is also central to the merits of Google’s
27 motion. The public’s interest in
disclosure therefore outweighs the
276-5 Exh. 2 to Hefazi GRANTED. Google seeks to seal detailed,
1
Decl. confidential information regarding
2 Google’s systems, public disclosure of
which may cause Google competitive
3 harm (Hefazi Decl.).
276-6 Exh. 3 to Hefazi DENIED Google asks to seal a transcript
4 Decl. WITHOUT describing its system in generic terms.
5
PREJUDICE. Google’s boilerplate justification is not
sufficient to warrant sealing. Google
6 may file a renewed submission with
narrowly tailored redactions, but should
7 bear in mind that a renewed request that
fails to offer specific, compelling reasons
8 for sealing is likely to be rejected.
9 276-7 Exh. 4 to Hefazi DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 276-4.
Decl.
10
276-8 Exh. 7 to Hefazi GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 276-5.
11 Decl.
277-4 Exh. 6 to Hefazi GRANTED. Sonos seeks to seal detailed, confidential
12 Decl. information regarding Google’s systems,
public disclosure of which may cause
13 Google competitive harm (Richter
Decl.).
14
277-5 Exh. 8 to Hefazi DENIED. Sonos does not seek to seal this
15 Decl. information (Richter Decl.).
16 5. SONOS’S MOTION TO STRIKE.
17 Both parties have filed motions to seal in connection with Sonos’s April 2022 motion to
18 strike (Dkt. Nos. 220, 253, 265). Upon review, this order rules as follows:
19
Dkt. Document to be Result Reasoning
20 No. Sealed
220-2 Sonos’s Motion to GRANTED IN The motion is GRANTED as to the
21
Strike PART. reference to source code and its file
22 location on page 12, public disclosure of
which may cause Google competitive
23 harm.
24 The motion is otherwise DENIED. The
information Google seeks to seal is
25
generic. Google fails to adequately
26 explain how disclosure of this high-level
information could allow a third-party to
27 understand its system in enough detail
merits of the Court’s order on the motion
1
to strike (Dkt. No. 315). Google cites no
2 authority indicating why this high-level
information is sealable, particularly as
3 much of the information relates to
technology that is more than a decade
4 old. See Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc.,
2015 WL 5012679, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug.
5
24, 2015) (Judge William H. Orrick).
6 The public’s interest in disclosure
therefore outweighs Google’s interest in
7 sealing.
8 220-3 Exh. A to Caridis GRANTED. Google asks to seal redacted portions of
Decl. its invalidity claim chart, public
9
disclosure of which may cause Google
10 competitive harm (Dkt. No. 235–36).
253-2 Google’s GRANTED IN The motion is GRANTED as to the
11 Opposition PART. screenshots of Google’s contentions on
pages 5 and 16 and the discussion of
12
Google’s source code and associated file
locations on pages 19:6–20:2, public
13
disclosure of which may cause Google
14 harm.
15 The motion is otherwise DENIED. See
entry for Dkt. No. 220-2.
16
253-3 Exh. 2 GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 220-3.
17 253-4 Exh. 6 DENIED Google asks to seal “portions highlighted
WITHOUT in green” of a 281-page document, the
18 PREJUDICE. vast majority of which is evidently not
highlighted. Google may file a renewed
19 submission that identifies the exact
locations of its proposed redactions.
20
253-5 Exh. 9 DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 220-2.
21 253-6 Hefazi Decl. in GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 220-3.
Support of
22 Opposition
23
265-2 Sonos’s Reply GRANTED IN The motion is GRANTED as to the
PART. discussion of Google’s source code and
24 associated file locations on page 11,
public disclosure of which may cause
25 Google harm.
26 The motion is otherwise DENIED. See
entry for Dkt. No. 220-2.
27
6. RELATED SUBMISSIONS.
1
Google has filed motions to seal in connection with its notice of deposition testimony
2
(Dkt. No. 296), its summary judgment presentation slides (Dkt. Nos. 321–22), and its motion
3
to bifurcate (Dkt. No. 239). Sonos has filed a motion to seal in connection with its own
4
summary judgment presentation slides (Dkt. No. 313). Upon review, this order rules as
5
follows:
6
7 Dkt. Document to be Result Reasoning
No. Sealed
8
296-2 Dep. Transcript GRANTED. Sonos asks to seal portions of a
9 deposition of one its employees, public
disclosure of which may cause Sonos
10 harm (Dkt. Nos. 305–06). Moreover, the
information sought to be sealed is only
11
tangentially related to the merits.
12
313-2 Sonos Presentation GRANTED. Google asks to seal portions of the
13 Slides presentation slides that Sonos used in its
oral argument, disclosure of which may
14 cause Google competitive harm (Dkt.
No. 318).
15
321-3; Google GRANTED. Both parties ask to seal portions of
16 322-2 Presentation Slides presentation slides that Google used in its
oral argument, disclosure of which may
17 cause competitive harm to both parties
(Dkt. Nos. 321, 331).
18 329-2 Motion to DENIED. Google filed a motion to seal portions of
Bifurcate its brief and an exhibit on behalf of
19
Sonos, but Sonos later filed a submission
20 clarifying that it does not seek to seal that
information (Dkt. No. 337).
21 329-3 Exh. 1 DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 329-2.
22 //
23 //
24 7. RESPONSES TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE.
25 Both parties filed motions to seal in connection with their responses to the Court’s order
26 to show cause (Dkt. Nos. 346–47, 348, 350). Upon review, this order rules as follows:
27
Dkt. Document to be Result Reasoning
1
No. Sealed
2 346-2 Exh. 2 to Caridis DENIED. Sonos asks to seal an expert report on
Decl. behalf of non-party Bose. Bose,
3 however, did not file a supporting
declaration as required by Local Rule 79-
4 5(f). The request is denied.
5
346-3 Exh. 3 to Caridis DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 346-2.
6 Decl.
347-3; Exh. 6 (Part 1) DENIED. Google asks to seal general, technical
7 350-4 information regarding its systems
(Kaplan Decl.). Google fails to
8
adequately explain how disclosure of this
high-level information could allow a
9
third-party to understand its system in
10 enough detail that it would cause it
competitive harm. The information is
11 also central to the merits of this case.
Google cites no authority indicating why
12
this high-level information is sealable,
13 particularly as much of the information
relates to technology that is more than a
14 decade old. See Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos,
Inc., 2015 WL 5012679, at *5 (N.D. Cal.
15 Aug. 24, 2015) (Judge William H.
Orrick). The public’s interest in
16
disclosure therefore outweighs Google’s
17 interest in sealing.
18 347-4; Exh. 6 (Part 2) GRANTED. Google asks to seal information related
350-5 to third-party license agreements, public
19 disclosure of which may cause Google
harm (Kaplan Decl.).
20
21
348-3 Exh. 4 to Caridis GRANTED. Sonos asks to seal confidential
22 Decl. information regarding its systems,
disclosure of which may cause Sonos
23 harm (Richter Decl.).
24 350-2 Exh. 1 to Kaplan DENIED. Sonos seeks to seal general, technical
Decl. information regarding its systems (Dkt.
25 Nos. 356–37). Sonos’s support for
sealing is insufficient because it is
26 overbroad and nonspecific. Given the
nature of the information at issue, Sonos
27
does not describe with particularity how
would cause it competitive harm. It
1
merely provides the generic assertion that
2 “public disclosure of such information
may lead to competitive harm as Sonos’s
3 competitors could use these details
regarding the architecture and
4 functionality of these products to gain a
competitive advantage in the marketplace
5
with respect to their competing products”
6 (Richter Decl. ¶ 7). The passages merely
offer high-level descriptions of
7 confidential information and/or
references to variable names. Sonos cites
8 no authority indicating why this high-
level information is sealable. See Finjan,
9
Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., 2015 WL 5012679,
10 at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2015) (Judge
William H. Orrick). This information
11 goes to the heart of this litigation, and the
particularly strong public interest here
12 outweighs Sonos’s interest in keeping the
material sealed.
13
350-3 Exh. 3 to Kaplan DENIED Sonos asks to seal the entirety of a
14 Decl. WITHOUT deposition transcript on the basis that it is
PREJUDICE. subject to the Court’s protective order
15 (Richter Decl. ¶ 8). That is not
sufficient, on its own, to warrant sealing.
16
See Civ. L.R. 79-5(c).
17
Sonos may file a renewed submission
18 with narrowly tailored redactions, but
should bear in mind that a renewed
19 request that fails to offer specific,
compelling reasons for sealing is likely
20
to be rejected.
21 350-4 Exh. 6 to (Part 1) GRANTED IN Sonos asks to seal portions of its expert
Kaplan Decl. PART AND report (Dkt. No. 356). The request is
22 DENIED IN DENIED as to paragraphs 192, 222, 223,
PART. and 231, which convey high-level,
23 generic information. Sonos’s boilerplate
justification for sealing this information
24
does not suffice. The motion is
25 otherwise GRANTED as to Sonos’s
remaining proposed redactions, public
26 disclosure of which may cause Sonos
harm (ibid.).
27
I 350-5 Exh. 6 (Part 2) to DENIED. Sonos filed a submission indicating that
Kaplan Decl. it does not seek to seal information in
2 this document (Dkt. No. 356).
350-6 | Exh. 9 to Kaplan See entry for Dkt. No. 350-5.
3 Decl.
350-7 Exh. 11 to Kaplan DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 350-5.
4 Decl.
5 350-8 Exh. 12 to Kaplan GRANTED. Sonos asks to seal specific technical
Decl. information about its system, public
6 disclosure of which may cause Sonos
harm (Richter Decl.).
7 350-9 Google’s Brief DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 350-2.
8 Showing Cause
9
10 CONCLUSION
The parties should please note that, in the future, at trial or otherwise, the sealing calculus
D may change with respect to any of the foregoing documents. With respect to motions to seal
B that this order denied without prejudice, revised requests may be submitted that justify sealing
4 any information that may still be confidential within FOURTEEN DAyYs. All other documents
S 5 shall be refiled in full compliance with this order no later than MAY 30, 2023, at NOON.
16
& IT IS SO ORDERED.
= 17
Z 18
19 Dated: February 22, 2023.
21
LLIAM ALSUP
22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28