The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
PERSONAL AUDIO, LLC, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 17-1751-CFC-CJB
)
GOOGLE LLC, )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
At Wilmington, Delaware this 15th day of March, 2022.
WHEREAS, on January 24, 2022, the Court issued a Memorandum Order (the
“Memorandum Order”) regarding Defendant Google LLC’s (“Defendant” or “Google”) Daubert
Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony as to the Sequencing File Limitation (“Daubert motion”),
(D.I. 720);
WHEREAS, the Court released the Memorandum Order under seal in recognition that it
may contain confidential information, pending review by the parties to allow them to submit a
single, jointly proposed, redacted version (if necessary) of the Memorandum Order, (id. at 4);
WHEREAS, on January 27, 2022, Google filed an “Unopposed Motion to Redact Order”
(the “Motion”), submitting that the redactions relate to “source code implementation of certain
accused features of the accused Google Play Music software” and are necessary because
disclosure of the confidential information reflected in the proposed redacted text would cause
harm to Google, (D.I. 724 at 3);
WHEREAS, Plaintiff Personal Audio, LLC does not oppose Google’s Motion, (id. at 1);
WHEREAS, the proposed redactions relate to a Daubert motion (and not to a dispositive
motion);
WHEREAS, the proposed redactions are somewhat significant in scope, totaling nearly
one-half of a page of the four-page Memorandum Order, (id., ex. B);
WHEREAS, the proposed redacted material has a bearing on the Court’s ultimate
decision;
WHEREAS, and considering the question as to this Motion only, certain of the proposed
redactions are justifiable, since the language therein appears to come directly from Google’s
source code, such that good cause exists to believe that disclosure of those portions of the
Memorandum Order would work a “clearly defined and serious injury” to Google, Pansy v.
Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 786 (3d Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted);
WHEREAS, the Court is not persuaded that other of the proposed redactions would cause
injury to Google, as Google did not redact related content from its Daubert motion briefing, and
thus such content is already publicly available, (D.I. 582 at 3-4), or such content is very general
in nature and the Court is not persuaded that disclosure of it would cause injury to Google;
THEREFORE, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Google’s unopposed Motion is GRANTED-IN-PART.
2. Any and all publicly-available copies of the Memorandum Order, including but not
limited to copies that are or will be available by remote electronic access, shall be
redacted as follows:
The following content from Page 2, paragraph 3 shall be redacted:
(1) between “made up of data from” and “is referenced during playback”
(2) between “in actuality, ‘data from” and “is used to perform these functions”
(3) between “utilizes” and “Indeed”
(4) between “acknowledge the use of” and “(D.I. 571, ex. B at para. 265”
(5) between “that is stored” and “so that the playlist”
(6) between “from the received” and “(PA’s sequencing file)” and
(7) between “copied to the” and “which is then used to control”
No other material shall be redacted.
Christopher J j Burke 7 ,
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE