Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 334 Filed 08/29/22 Page 1 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SONOS, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`No. C 20-06754 WHA
`
`
`
`OMNIBUS ORDER RE MOTIONS TO
`SEAL
`
`This order addresses pending motions to seal filed in connection with Google’s amended
`
`complaint, Sonos’s motions to amend its infringement contentions, Sonos’s answer, and
`
`Google’s answer to Sonos’s counterclaims (see Dkt. Nos. 79, 83, 95, 123–124, 127, 133–134,
`
`140–141, 148, 151, 158, 163, 174–176, 197–198).
`
`1.
`
`THE LEGAL STANDARD.
`
`There is a strong public policy in favor of openness in our court system and the public is
`
`entitled to know to whom we are providing relief (or not). See Kamakana v. City & Cty. of
`
`Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–80 (9th Cir. 2006). Consequently, access to motions and their
`
`attachments that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only
`
`upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp.,
`
`LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). But a good cause standard applies to the sealing
`
`of documents that are unrelated or only tangentially related to the underlying claim. Id. at
`
`1098–99. “For good cause to exist, the party seeking protection bears the burden of showing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 334 Filed 08/29/22 Page 2 of 6
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.” Phillips ex rel. Ests. of
`
`Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002).
`
`In addition, sealing motions filed in this district must contain a specific statement that
`
`explains: (1) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (2) the injury that
`
`will result should sealing be denied; and (3) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not
`
`sufficient. The material requested to be sealed must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the
`
`sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(c). For example, “[t]he publication of materials that could
`
`result in infringement upon trade secrets has long been considered a factor that would
`
`overcome [the] strong presumption” in favor of access and provide compelling reasons for
`
`sealing. Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011). Compelling reasons
`
`may also warrant sealing for “sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s
`
`competitive standing,” especially where the public has “minimal interest” in the information
`
`because it “is not necessary to the public’s understanding of the case.” See Nixon v. Warner
`
`Comms., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978).
`
`Finally, “[s]upporting declarations may not rely on vague boilerplate language or
`
`nebulous assertions of potential harm but must explain with particularity why any document or
`
`portion thereof remains sealable under the applicable legal standard.” Bronson v. Samsung
`
`Elecs. Am., Inc., 2019 WL 7810811, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 28, 2019) (citing Civ. L.R. 79-5).
`
`“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain
`
`documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are
`
`sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c).
`
`2.
`
`GOOGLE’S AMENDED COMPLAINT (DKT. NOS. 79, 83, 124, 125).
`
`Google asks to seal a confidential contract between itself and Sonos along with certain
`
`references to that agreement in its then-proposed second amended complaint, opening brief
`
`requesting leave to amend, and corresponding reply brief (see Dkt. Nos. 79, 83). Google avers
`
`that “[p]ublic disclosure of this information would harm Google’s competitive standing and its
`
`ability to negotiate future agreements by giving competitors access to Google’s highly
`
`confidential business thinking and asymmetrical information about Google’s licensing
`
`2
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 334 Filed 08/29/22 Page 3 of 6
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`strategies to other entities” (Cooper Decl. ¶ 3). This is an adequate explanation that warrants
`
`sealing, and the requests are narrowly tailored. See In re Google Inc. Gmail Litig., No. C 13-
`
`02430, 2014 WL 10537440, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2014) (Judge Lucy H. Koh) (sealing “the
`
`terms of Google’s contracts” because they “are trade secrets that, if disclosed, could cause
`
`competitive harm to Google”). Further, the order adjudicating Google’s motion did not
`
`significantly discuss the portions sought to be sealed (see Dkt. No. 111). Google’s motions to
`
`seal with respect to the Content Integration Agreement (Cooper Decl. Exh. 3) and the
`
`requested accompanying redactions (id. at Exhs. 1–2, 5) are accordingly GRANTED.
`
`The same answer with respect to the Content Integration Agreement applies to Google’s
`
`subsequent motions to seal attached to the filing of its second amended complaint (see Dkt.
`
`Nos. 123–124). Additionally, the parties seek to seal 2014 emails between Google and Sonos
`
`employees brainstorming the technology underlying the patents-in-suit (ibid.). Sonos filed a
`
`declaration in support of sealing this material (Dkt. No. 130). The emails discuss the
`
`technology in sufficient detail to warrant sealing. The motions to seal filed in conjunction with
`
`Google’s second amended complaint are accordingly also GRANTED. This order forewarns the
`
`parties, however, that should any of this material become relevant at trial or otherwise, the
`
`sealing calculus may change, perhaps leading to a different decision on future sealing requests.
`
`3.
`
`SONOS’S INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS (DKT. NOS. 95, 127, 140,
`141, 148, 151, 163, 176).
`
`Sonos, with Google’s support, filed conditionally under seal certain source code material
`
`supporting its response to Google’s motion to strike Sonos’s infringement contentions (Dkt.
`
`Nos. 95, 106–107). Google, however, revised and further limited its proposed redactions of
`
`the infringement contentions in Exhibit A, which Sonos had sought to seal in its entirety
`
`(compare Dkt. No. 95-4 with Dkt. No. 107). Google’s revisions are narrowly tailored to direct
`
`references to source code, which is sufficient to warrant sealing of the exhibit and the
`
`corresponding references in Sonos’s discovery letter. The motion is accordingly GRANTED IN
`
`PART and DENIED IN PART. Sonos must re-file Exhibit A in accordance with Google’s
`
`proposed redactions.
`
`3
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 334 Filed 08/29/22 Page 4 of 6
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`The answer is the same as to the many subsequent requests to seal the infringement
`
`contentions. Sonos may not seal the contentions in their entirety, but may re-file them in
`
`conformance with Google’s proposed tailored redactions. However, as to all submitted
`
`material, the parties may not redact the names of variables used in and relevant to the orders on
`
`summary judgment (see Dkt. Nos. 309, 315–316). In particular, as to all filings, the parties
`
`may not redact the terms “join_group,” “videoId,” “ItemWindowResponse,”
`
`“WatchNextResponse,” “upNextVideoID,” and related terms necessary for the public to
`
`understand those orders. The names of variables are not source code, and Google has not
`
`adequately explained why disclosure of the names of variables would result in the kind of
`
`serious harm that would justify sealing.
`
`Thus, given the foregoing, Sonos’s motion to seal the infringement contentions in
`
`connection with it first motion for leave to amend them (Dkt. No. 127) is DENIED IN PART
`
`because it seeks to seal the contentions in their entirety. They must be re-submitted in
`
`conformance with the redactions that Google proposed elsewhere. Sonos’s subsequent
`
`requests to seal the infringement contentions in connection with its corrected motion for leave
`
`to amend the contentions (Dkt. Nos. 151, 176) are also DENIED IN PART because Google filed
`
`more narrowly tailored redactions in its supporting declarations (see Dkt. Nos. 154–155, 190–
`
`191).
`
`However, Google’s request to seal the contentions in connection with its oppositions to
`
`Sonos’s motions are GRANTED because its requests are appropriately tailored (Dkt. Nos. 140,
`
`163). And Google’s accompanying requests to seal certain “highly sensitive financial and
`
`product revenue data” that it brought up its opposition papers are also GRANTED (see ibid.; see
`
`also Ma Decl. ¶ 4).
`
`Finally, Google’s February 22, 2022, request to seal information on behalf of Sonos (Dkt.
`
`No. 141) is DENIED to the extent that information is not co-extensive with Google’s own
`
`motion (Dkt. No. 140) because Sonos’s supportive filing stated that Sonos had no sealing
`
`interest (see Dkt. No. 146). Similarly, Sonos’s motion to seal Google’s interrogatory responses
`
`4
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 334 Filed 08/29/22 Page 5 of 6
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`in connection with its reply brief (Dkt. No. 148) is DENIED because Google did not file the
`
`responsive declaration required by Civil Local Rule 79-5.
`
`Again, should any sealed material become relevant at trial or otherwise, the sealing
`
`calculus may change, perhaps leading to a different decision on future sealing requests.
`
`4.
`
`SONOS’S ANSWER (DKT. NOS. 133, 134, 158, 174, 175).
`
`Sonos, with Google’s support, filed conditionally under seal portions of its answer to
`
`Google’s amended complaint and twenty-six associated exhibits (Dkt. Nos. 133–134). Google
`
`filed a supportive declaration (Dkt. No. 144–145). The exhibits generally cover Sonos’s
`
`infringement contentions, licensing presentations and licensing agreements made between the
`
`parties, references to source code, and emails between Google and Sonos employees discussing
`
`a potential partnership. The parties assert that disclosure of this information will result in
`
`competitive harm (Richter Decl. ¶¶ 4–5; Ma Decl. ¶¶ 5–6). To the extent stated below, the
`
`motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
`
`First, as to the infringement contentions (Exhibits CI, CJ, CK, CL), Google provided
`
`narrowly tailored redactions (Dkt. No. 144–145). As discussed above, those exhibits may only
`
`be sealed in conformance with those proposed redactions.
`
`Second, the exhibits with direct references to source code and emails discussing source
`
`code and related technology in detail may remain sealed. Certain emails, however, discuss the
`
`technology and partnership at too high a level of abstraction to justify sealing. In particular,
`
`neither party has adequately explained why the emails in Exhibits AZ, BB, BE, BI, and BL
`
`present the serious risk of competitive harm that would justify sealing. The motion as to those
`
`exhibits is accordingly denied without prejudice. If the parties can articulate specific, non-
`
`boilerplate reasons that these emails actually present such a risk, the Court will entertain a
`
`renewed request.
`
`Third, this order agrees that the license agreements and licensing discussions and
`
`presentations between the parties may remain sealed.
`
`The proposed redactions in Sonos’s answer are acceptable to the extent they do not
`
`conflict with the above. Moreover, the foregoing also applies to Sonos’s corrected amended
`
`5
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 334 Filed 08/29/22 Page 6 of 6
`
`
`
`answer, which uses identical exhibits (Dkt. Nos. 174–175, 189–190), and the proposed
`
`redactions in the corresponding motion for leave to correct (Dkt. No. 158). Accordingly, the
`
`requests in the submitted corrected amended answer are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
`
`PART and the requests accompanying the corresponding motion to correct are GRANTED.
`
`Should any of this sealed material become relevant at trial or otherwise, the sealing
`
`calculus may change, perhaps leading to a different decision on future sealing requests.
`
`5.
`
`GOOGLE’S ANSWER (DKT. NOS. 197, 198).
`
`Google, with Sonos’s support, filed conditionally under seal portions of its answer to
`
`Sonos’s counterclaims and two associated exhibits (Dkt. Nos. 197–198). Sonos filed a
`
`supportive declaration (Dkt. No. 201). The proposed redactions and the exhibits sought to be
`
`sealed mirror those discussed above with respect to Google’s amended complaint. For the
`
`same reasons discussed above, the references to the Content Integration Agreement, the
`
`agreement itself, and the emails discussing the parties’ technology at a high level of detail may
`
`remain sealed. The motion is accordingly GRANTED. But, should this material become
`
`relevant at trial or otherwise, the answer may change.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Within THIRTY-FIVE DAYS of the date of this order, the parties must file documents in
`
`full compliance with this order.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: August 29, 2022.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WILLIAM ALSUP
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`