Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 518 Filed 02/22/23 Page 1 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 the patent
`
`showdown procedure, including Sonos’s claim construction brief (Dkt. No. 203), Sonos’s
`
`patent showdown motion for summary judgment (Dkt. Nos. 209, 247–48, 273), Sonos’s
`
`accompanying motion to strike (Dkt. Nos. 220, 253, 265), Google’s patent showdown motion
`
`for summary judgment (Dkt. Nos. 210, 221, 252, 276–77), related submissions by both parties
`
`(Dkt. Nos. 296, 313, 321–22, 329), and responses to the Court’s order to show cause (Dkt.
`
`Nos. 346–48, 350).
`
`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.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 518 Filed 02/22/23 Page 2 of 17
`
`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`SONOS’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF.
`
`Sonos, with Google’s support, filed conditionally under seal an exhibit to its claim
`
`construction brief containing Google’s responses to Sonos’s first set of interrogatories (Dkt.
`
`Nos. 203). In support, Google submitted a revised version of its response with tailored
`
`2
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 518 Filed 02/22/23 Page 3 of 17
`
`
`
`redactions (Dkt. Nos. 213–14). The redactions, however, are directed toward the term
`
`“videoID” and related information that was central to the merits in the Court’s order on
`
`summary judgment and claim construction (see Dkt. No. 316 at 8–9). Moreover, Google has
`
`merely offered generic, boilerplate explanations as to why public disclosure of this information
`
`would result in competitive harm. The public interest in understanding the merits of this case
`
`therefore outweighs Google’s asserted interested in confidentiality. The motion is DENIED.
`
`3.
`
`SONOS’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
`
`Both parties have filed motions to seal in connection with Sonos’s motion for summary
`
`judgment (Dkt. Nos. 209, 247–48, 273). Upon review, this order rules as follows:
`
`
`
`Dkt.
`No.
`209-2
`
`Document to be
`Sealed
`Sonos’s Motion for
`Summary
`Judgment
`
`Result
`
`DENIED.
`
`209-3
`
`Almeroth Decl.
`
`GRANTED IN
`PART AND
`
`3
`
`Reasoning
`
`Google seeks to seal general, technical
`information regarding its systems (Dkt.
`Nos. 215–16). Google’s support for
`sealing is insufficient because it is
`overbroad and nonspecific. Given the
`nature of the information at issue, Google
`does not describe with particularity how
`disclosure of this general information
`would cause it competitive harm. It
`merely provides the generic assertion that
`“competitors could use these details
`regarding the architecture and
`functionality of Google’s products to
`gain a competitive advantage in the
`marketplace with respect to their
`competing products” (Ma Decl. ¶ 5).
`Google further references source code,
`but there is none in the document.
`Google cites no authority indicating why
`this high-level information is sealable.
`See Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., 2015
`WL 5012679, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24,
`2015) (Judge William H. Orrick). This
`information goes to the very heart of this
`litigation, and the particularly strong
`public interest here outweighs Google’s
`interest in keeping the material sealed.
`The request is GRANTED as to the
`proposed redactions in paragraphs 124–
`
`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 518 Filed 02/22/23 Page 4 of 17
`
`
`
`DENIED IN
`PART.
`
`DENIED.
`
`209-4
`
`Exh. B to Smith
`Decl.
`
`209-5
`
`Exh. D to Smith
`Decl.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 209-5.
`
`25, 143–44, and 158–59, which contain
`source code. The request is otherwise
`DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 209-2.
`Google asks to seal redacted portions of
`its response to Sonos’s interrogatories on
`the grounds it contains confidential
`information regarding its systems. The
`response describes Google’s speaker
`group system in generic terms. Google
`does not adequately explain how
`disclosure of this high-level information
`could allow a third-party to understand
`its system in enough detail that it would
`cause Google competitive harm.
`Google seeks to seal detailed,
`confidential information regarding
`Google’s systems, public disclosure of
`which may cause Google competitive
`harm.
`See entry for Dkt. No. 209-5.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 209-5. However,
`the exhibit should be resubmitted with
`Google’s proposed tailored redactions.
`See Dkt. No. 216-2.
`See entry for Dkt. No. 209-5.
`
`Google asks to seal its responses to
`Sonos’s requests for admission on the
`grounds they contain confidential
`information regarding its systems. The
`request is overbroad. Moreover,
`Google’s responses describe Google’s
`speaker group system in generic terms.
`Google does not adequately explain how
`disclosure of this high-level information
`could allow a third-party to understand
`its system in enough detail that it would
`cause Google competitive harm.
`See entry for Dkt. No. 209-5.
`
`Google seeks seeks to seal this transcript
`on the grounds it contains confidential
`information regarding its systems and
`that it is subject to a protective order in a
`separate proceeding. The witness therein
`
`209-6
`
`209-7
`
`209-8
`
`Exh. F to Smith
`Decl.
`Exh. G to Smith
`Decl.
`Exh. H to Smith
`Decl.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`209-9
`
`209-10
`
`Exh. I to Smith
`Decl.
`Exh. L to Smith
`Decl.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`DENIED.
`
`209-11
`
`209-12
`
`Exh. M to Smith
`Decl.
`Exh. N to Smith
`Decl.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`DENIED.
`
`4
`
`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 518 Filed 02/22/23 Page 5 of 17
`
`
`
`described the system in generic terms.
`Google does not adequately explain how
`disclosure of this high-level information
`could allow a third-party to understand
`its system in enough detail that it would
`cause Google competitive harm.
`Moreover, the request is clearly
`overbroad. That the information is
`subject to a protective order alone is
`insufficient to warrant sealing.
`See entry for Dkt. No. 209-12.
`
`DENIED.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 209-5.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 209-5.
`
`GRANTED IN
`PART AND
`DENIED IN
`PART.
`
`5
`
`Google asks to seal portions of its
`opposition brief. Google also asks to
`seal portions of its opposition on behalf
`of Sonos, but Sonos clarified in a later
`filing that it “does not seek to redact or
`file under seal any portion of Google’s
`Opposition” (Dkt. No. 260 at ¶ 7).
`
`Google’s request is GRANTED as to
`Google’s discussion of its confidential
`presentation on pages 24–25, disclosure
`of which may cause Google competitive
`harm.
`
`The request is otherwise DENIED.
`Google seeks to seal general, technical
`information regarding its systems.
`Google’s support for sealing this
`additional material is insufficient because
`it is overbroad and nonspecific. Given
`the nature of the information at issue,
`Google does not describe with
`particularity how disclosure of this
`general information would cause it
`competitive harm. It merely provides the
`generic assertion that “competitors could
`use these details regarding the
`architecture and functionality of
`Google’s products to gain a competitive
`advantage in the marketplace with
`respect to their competing products”
`(Hefazi Decl. ¶ 4). Google further
`
`209-13
`
`209-14
`
`209-15
`
`247-3;
`248-3
`
`Exh. O to Smith
`Decl.
`Exh. P to Smith
`Decl.
`Exh. Q to Smith
`Decl.
`Google’s
`Opposition
`
`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 518 Filed 02/22/23 Page 6 of 17
`
`
`
`references source code, but there is none
`in the document. Google cites no
`authority indicating why this high-level
`information is sealable. See Finjan, Inc.
`v. Sophos, Inc., 2015 WL 5012679, at *5
`(N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2015) (Judge
`William H. Orrick). This information
`goes to the very heart of this litigation,
`and the particularly strong public interest
`here outweighs Google’s interest in
`keeping the material sealed.
`The request is GRANTED as to the image
`of source code in paragraphs 36 and 40,
`disclosure of which may cause Google
`competitive harm. The request is
`otherwise DENIED. See entry for Dkt.
`No. 247-3.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 247-3.
`
`Both parties seek to seal detailed,
`confidential information regarding
`Google and Sonos systems, public
`disclosure of which may cause Google
`and Sonos competitive harm.
`Google seeks to seal detailed,
`confidential information regarding
`Google’s systems, public disclosure of
`which may cause Google competitive
`harm.
`See entry for Dkt. No. 247-7.
`
`The request is GRANTED as to the image
`of source code on page 323, disclosure of
`which may cause Google competitive
`harm. The request is otherwise DENIED.
`See entry for Dkt. No. 247-3.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 247-7.
`
`Google filed a motion to seal this exhibit
`on behalf of Sonos, but Sonos clarified in
`its supporting declaration that it does not
`seek to seal this material (Dkt. Nos. 260–
`61).
`See entry for Dkt. No. 248-4.
`
`247-4
`
`Schonfeld Decl.
`
`GRANTED IN
`PART AND
`DENIED IN
`PART.
`
`247-5
`
`247-6;
`248-5
`
`Exh. 1 to Kaplan
`Decl.
`Exh. 4 to Kaplan
`Decl.
`
`DENIED.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`247-7
`
`Exh. 5 to Kaplan
`Decl.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`247-8
`
`247-9
`
`Exh. 8 to Kaplan
`Decl.
`Exh. 9 to Kaplan
`Decl.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`GRANTED IN
`PART AND
`DENIED IN
`PART.
`
`247-10
`
`248-4
`
`Exh. 10 to Kaplan
`Decl.
`Exh. 3 to Kaplan
`Decl.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`DENIED.
`
`248-6
`
`Exh. 7 to Kaplan
`Decl.
`
`DENIED.
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 518 Filed 02/22/23 Page 7 of 17
`
`
`
`273-1
`
`Exh. R
`
`DENIED.
`
`273-2
`273-4
`
`Exh. S
`Sonos’s Reply
`
`DENIED.
`DENIED.
`
`Google’s support for sealing this
`additional material is insufficient because
`it is overbroad and nonspecific. Given
`the nature of the information at issue,
`Google does not describe with
`particularity how disclosure of this
`general information would cause it
`competitive harm. It merely provides the
`generic assertion that “competitors could
`use these details regarding the
`architecture and functionality of
`Google’s products to gain a competitive
`advantage in the marketplace with
`respect to their competing products” (Ma
`Decl. ¶ 5). Google further references
`source code, but there is none in the
`document. Google cites no authority
`indicating why this high-level
`information is sealable. See Finjan, Inc.
`v. Sophos, Inc., 2015 WL 5012679, at *5
`(N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2015) (Judge
`William H. Orrick). This information
`goes to the very heart of this litigation,
`and the particularly strong public interest
`here outweighs Google’s interest in
`keeping the material sealed.
`See entry for Dkt. No. 273-1.
`See entry for Dkt. No. 273-1.
`
`4.
`
`GOOGLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
`
`Both parties have filed motions to seal in connection with Google’s motion for summary
`
`judgment (Dkt. Nos. 210, 221, 252, 276–77). Upon review, this order rules as follows:
`
`
`
`Dkt.
`No.
`210-3
`
`Document to be
`Sealed
`Exh. 1
`
`Result
`
`Reasoning
`
`DENIED
`WITHOUT
`PREJUDICE.
`
`7
`
`Google asks to seal the entirety of its
`fifty-four page expert report (Hefazi
`Decl.). This is overbroad, particularly as
`swaths of the report go to the merits of
`Google’s motion and Google has merely
`offered a boilerplate justification for
`sealing. The request is denied without
`prejudice. Google may file a renewed
`submission with narrowly tailored
`redactions, but should bear in mind that a
`renewed request that fails to offer
`
`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 518 Filed 02/22/23 Page 8 of 17
`
`
`
`210-4
`
`Exh. 2
`
`GRANTED.
`
`210-5
`210-6
`210-7
`210-8
`210-9
`210-10
`210-11
`
`Exh. 3
`Exh. 4
`Exh. 5
`Exh. 6
`Exh. 8
`Exh. 10
`Exh. 11
`
`GRANTED.
`GRANTED.
`GRANTED.
`GRANTED.
`GRANTED.
`GRANTED.
`DENIED.
`
`210-12
`
`Exh. 13 (Schonfeld
`Decl.)
`
`Exh. 19
`210-13
`Exh. 20
`210-14
`210-15 Google’s Motion
`for Summary
`Judgment
`
`GRANTED IN
`PART AND
`DENIED IN
`PART.
`
`GRANTED.
`GRANTED.
`GRANTED IN
`PART AND
`DENIED IN
`PART.
`
`8
`
`specific, compelling reasons for sealing
`is likely to be rejected.
`
`Google seeks to seal detailed,
`confidential information regarding
`Google’s systems, public disclosure of
`which may cause Google competitive
`harm (Hefazi Decl. ¶ 4).
`See entry for Dkt. No. 210-4.
`See entry for Dkt. No. 210-4.
`See entry for Dkt. No. 210-4.
`See entry for Dkt. No. 210-4.
`See entry for Dkt. No. 210-4.
`See entry for Dkt. No. 210-4.
`Google asks to seal a declaration from
`one of its engineers. This declaration
`was discussed in the Court’s order on
`summary judgment, so there is a strong
`interest in public disclosure. Moreover,
`the information revealed in the
`declaration relates to generic technical
`information from technology that is more
`than a decade old. Further, the
`declaration merely includes locations of
`source code and not source code itself.
`In light of the foregoing, Google’s
`boilerplate justification for sealing is not
`sufficient to warrant sealing. The request
`is denied.
`The request is GRANTED as to the image
`of source code in paragraphs 28 and 29,
`disclosure of which may cause Google
`competitive harm. The request is
`otherwise DENIED. See entry for Dkt.
`No. 210-15.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 210-4.
`See entry for Dkt. No. 210-4.
`First, Google asks to seal a quote from a
`Sonos engineer on the first page of its
`motion. Google does not offer any
`compelling justification for this request.
`The request is denied.
`
`Second, Google generally seeks to seal
`technical information regarding its
`systems (Hefazi Decl). The request is
`GRANTED as to Google’s description of
`
`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 518 Filed 02/22/23 Page 9 of 17
`
`
`
`the “Cloud Queue API” on pages 14:10–
`15:4, public disclosure of which could
`cause Google competitive harm.
`
`The request is otherwise DENIED as to
`the remainder of the brief. Google’s
`support for sealing is insufficient because
`it is overbroad and nonspecific. Given
`the nature of the information at issue,
`Google does not describe with
`particularity how disclosure of this
`general information would cause it
`competitive harm. It merely provides the
`generic assertion that “competitors could
`use these details regarding the
`architecture and functionality of
`Google’s products to gain a competitive
`advantage in the marketplace with
`respect to their competing products”
`(Hefazi Decl. ¶ 4). Google further
`references source code, but there is none
`in the document other than that described
`above. Google cites no authority
`indicating why this high-level
`information is sealable. See Finjan, Inc.
`v. Sophos, Inc., 2015 WL 5012679, at *5
`(N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2015) (Judge
`William H. Orrick).
`
`Were the Court to seal this information,
`the motion would be virtually
`incomprehensible to the public.
`Moreover, much of the information was
`central to the Court’s order on summary
`judgment (Dkt. No. 316). In short, this
`information goes to the very heart of this
`litigation, and the particularly strong
`public interest here outweighs Google’s
`interest in keeping the material sealed.
`See entry for Dkt. No. 210-15.
`
`Google seeks to seal descriptions of
`technical information regarding its
`systems (Ma Decl.). Google’s support
`for sealing is insufficient because it is
`overbroad and nonspecific. Given the
`
`221-3
`
`252-2
`
`Google’s Corrected
`Motion
`
`GRANTED IN
`PART AND
`DENIED IN
`PART.
`Sonos’s Opposition DENIED.
`
`9
`
`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 518 Filed 02/22/23 Page 10 of 17
`
`
`
`nature of the information at issue, Google
`does not describe with particularity how
`disclosure of this general information
`would cause it competitive harm. It
`merely provides the generic assertion that
`“competitors could use these details
`regarding the architecture and
`functionality of Google’s products to
`gain a competitive advantage in the
`marketplace with respect to their
`competing products” (Ma Decl. ¶ 5).
`Google further references source code,
`but there is none in the document.
`Google cites no authority indicating why
`this high-level information is sealable,
`particularly as much of the information
`relates to technology that is more than a
`decade old. See Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos,
`Inc., 2015 WL 5012679, at *5 (N.D. Cal.
`Aug. 24, 2015) (Judge William H.
`Orrick).
`
`Were the Court to seal this information,
`the motion would be virtually
`incomprehensible to the public.
`Moreover, much of the information was
`central to the Court’s order on summary
`judgment (Dkt. No. 316). In short, this
`information goes to the very heart of this
`litigation, and the particularly strong
`public interest here outweighs Google’s
`interest in keeping the material sealed.
`Google asks to seal significant swaths of
`Sonos’s expert report (Ma Decl.). The
`request is overbroad, particularly as
`much of the report go to the merits of
`Google’s motion and Google has merely
`offered a boilerplate justification for
`sealing. The request is denied without
`prejudice. Google may file a renewed
`submission with narrowly tailored
`redactions, but should bear in mind that a
`renewed request that fails to offer
`specific, compelling reasons for sealing
`is likely to be rejected.
`
`Google seeks to seal detailed,
`confidential information regarding
`
`252-3
`
`Exh. 1 to Boyea
`Decl. (Schmidt
`Decl.)
`
`DENIED
`WITHOUT
`PREJUDICE.
`
`252-4
`
`Exh. 2 to Boyea
`Decl.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`10
`
`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 518 Filed 02/22/23 Page 11 of 17
`
`
`
`Google’s systems, public disclosure of
`which may cause Google competitive
`harm (Ma Decl. ¶ 5).
`See entry for Dkt. No. 252-4.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 252-4.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 252-4.
`
`DENIED.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 252-2.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 252-4.
`
`DENIED.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 252-2.
`
`DENIED.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 252-2.
`
`DENIED.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 252-2.
`
`DENIED.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 252-2.
`
`DENIED.
`
`Sonos filed a motion to seal this exhibit
`on behalf of Google, but Google clarified
`in its supporting declaration that it does
`not seek to seal this material (Dkt. No.
`262).
`See entry for Dkt. No. 252-2.
`
`Google’s justifications for sealing
`portions of its reply do not warrant
`sealing for the same reasons described
`above with respect to its motion and
`Sonos’s opposition. See entry for Dkt.
`No. 252-2.
`Sonos and Google both seek to redact
`portions of Google’s expert declaration.
`The redactions sought to be sealed
`describe Sonos and Google’s systems in
`generic terms. Neither Sonos nor Google
`adequately explain how disclosure of this
`high-level information could allow a
`third-party to understand its system in
`enough detail that it would cause either
`party competitive harm. The information
`is also central to the merits of Google’s
`motion. The public’s interest in
`disclosure therefore outweighs the
`parties’ interest in sealing.
`
`11
`
`252-5
`
`252-6
`
`252-7
`
`252-8
`
`252-9
`
`252-10
`
`252-11
`
`252-12
`
`252-13
`
`252-14
`
`Exh. 3 to Boyea
`Decl.
`Exh. 4 to Boyea
`Decl.
`Exh. 7 to Boyea
`Decl.
`Exh. 9 to Boyea
`Decl.
`Exh. 10 to Boyea
`Decl.
`Exh. 11 to Boyea
`Decl.
`Exh. 12 to Boyea
`Decl.
`Exh. 13 to Boyea
`Decl.
`Exh. 14 to Boyea
`Decl.
`Exh. 15 to Boyea
`Decl.
`
`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
`
`252-15
`
`276-3
`
`Exh. 16 to Boyea
`Decl.
`Google’s Reply
`
`DENIED.
`
`DENIED.
`
`276-4;
`277-3
`
`Exh. 1 to Hefazi
`Decl.
`
`DENIED.
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 518 Filed 02/22/23 Page 12 of 17
`
`
`
`276-5
`
`Exh. 2 to Hefazi
`Decl.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`276-6
`
`Exh. 3 to Hefazi
`Decl.
`
`DENIED
`WITHOUT
`PREJUDICE.
`
`Google seeks to seal detailed,
`confidential information regarding
`Google’s systems, public disclosure of
`which may cause Google competitive
`harm (Hefazi Decl.).
`Google asks to seal a transcript
`describing its system in generic terms.
`Google’s boilerplate justification is not
`sufficient to warrant sealing. Google
`may file a renewed submission with
`narrowly tailored redactions, but should
`bear in mind that a renewed request that
`fails to offer specific, compelling reasons
`for sealing is likely to be rejected.
`
`276-7
`
`276-8
`
`277-4
`
`Exh. 4 to Hefazi
`Decl.
`Exh. 7 to Hefazi
`Decl.
`Exh. 6 to Hefazi
`Decl.
`
`DENIED.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 276-4.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 276-5.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`Sonos seeks to seal detailed, confidential
`information regarding Google’s systems,
`public disclosure of which may cause
`Google competitive harm (Richter
`Decl.).
`Sonos does not seek to seal this
`information (Richter Decl.).
`
`277-5
`
`Exh. 8 to Hefazi
`Decl.
`
`DENIED.
`
`5.
`
`SONOS’S MOTION TO STRIKE.
`
`Both parties have filed motions to seal in connection with Sonos’s April 2022 motion to
`
`strike (Dkt. Nos. 220, 253, 265). Upon review, this order rules as follows:
`
`
`
`Dkt.
`No.
`220-2
`
`Document to be
`Sealed
`Sonos’s Motion to
`Strike
`
`Result
`
`Reasoning
`
`GRANTED IN
`PART.
`
`12
`
`The motion is GRANTED as to the
`reference to source code and its file
`location on page 12, public disclosure of
`which may cause Google competitive
`harm.
`
`The motion is otherwise DENIED. The
`information Google seeks to seal is
`generic. Google fails to adequately
`explain how disclosure of this high-level
`information could allow a third-party to
`understand its system in enough detail
`that it would cause it competitive harm.
`The information is also central to the
`
`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 518 Filed 02/22/23 Page 13 of 17
`
`
`
`merits of the Court’s order on the motion
`to strike (Dkt. No. 315). Google cites no
`authority indicating why this high-level
`information is sealable, particularly as
`much of the information relates to
`technology that is more than a decade
`old. See Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc.,
`2015 WL 5012679, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug.
`24, 2015) (Judge William H. Orrick).
` The public’s interest in disclosure
`therefore outweighs Google’s interest in
`sealing.
`
`Google asks to seal redacted portions of
`its invalidity claim chart, public
`disclosure of which may cause Google
`competitive harm (Dkt. No. 235–36).
`The motion is GRANTED as to the
`screenshots of Google’s contentions on
`pages 5 and 16 and the discussion of
`Google’s source code and associated file
`locations on pages 19:6–20:2, public
`disclosure of which may cause Google
`harm.
`
`The motion is otherwise DENIED. See
`entry for Dkt. No. 220-2.
`See entry for Dkt. No. 220-3.
`Google asks to seal “portions highlighted
`in green” of a 281-page document, the
`vast majority of which is evidently not
`highlighted. Google may file a renewed
`submission that identifies the exact
`locations of its proposed redactions.
`See entry for Dkt. No. 220-2.
`See entry for Dkt. No. 220-3.
`
`The motion is GRANTED as to the
`discussion of Google’s source code and
`associated file locations on page 11,
`public disclosure of which may cause
`Google harm.
`
`The motion is otherwise DENIED. See
`entry for Dkt. No. 220-2.
`
`220-3
`
`Exh. A to Caridis
`Decl.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`253-2
`
`Google’s
`Opposition
`
`GRANTED IN
`PART.
`
`253-3
`253-4
`
`Exh. 2
`Exh. 6
`
`253-5
`253-6
`
`265-2
`
`Exh. 9
`Hefazi Decl. in
`Support of
`Opposition
`Sonos’s Reply
`
`/ /
`
`GRANTED.
`DENIED
`WITHOUT
`PREJUDICE.
`
`DENIED.
`GRANTED.
`
`GRANTED IN
`PART.
`
`13
`
`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 518 Filed 02/22/23 Page 14 of 17
`
`
`
`6.
`
`RELATED SUBMISSIONS.
`
`Google has filed motions to seal in connection with its notice of deposition testimony
`
`(Dkt. No. 296), its summary judgment presentation slides (Dkt. Nos. 321–22), and its motion
`
`to bifurcate (Dkt. No. 239). Sonos has filed a motion to seal in connection with its own
`
`summary judgment presentation slides (Dkt. No. 313). Upon review, this order rules as
`
`follows:
`
`
`
`Dkt.
`No.
`296-2
`
`Document to be
`Sealed
`Dep. Transcript
`
`Result
`
`Reasoning
`
`GRANTED.
`
`Sonos asks to seal portions of a
`deposition of one its employees, public
`disclosure of which may cause Sonos
`harm (Dkt. Nos. 305–06). Moreover, the
`information sought to be sealed is only
`tangentially related to the merits.
`
`Google asks to seal portions of the
`presentation slides that Sonos used in its
`oral argument, disclosure of which may
`cause Google competitive harm (Dkt.
`No. 318).
`Both parties ask to seal portions of
`presentation slides that Google used in its
`oral argument, disclosure of which may
`cause competitive harm to both parties
`(Dkt. Nos. 321, 331).
`Google filed a motion to seal portions of
`its brief and an exhibit on behalf of
`Sonos, but Sonos later filed a submission
`clarifying that it does not seek to seal that
`information (Dkt. No. 337).
`See entry for Dkt. No. 329-2.
`
`313-2
`
`Sonos Presentation
`Slides
`
`GRANTED.
`
`321-3;
`322-2
`
`Google
`Presentation Slides
`
`GRANTED.
`
`329-2
`
`Motion to
`Bifurcate
`
`DENIED.
`
`329-3
`
`Exh. 1
`
`DENIED.
`
`//
`
`//
`
`7.
`
`RESPONSES TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE.
`
`Both parties filed motions to seal in connection with their responses to the Court’s order
`
`to show cause (Dkt. Nos. 346–47, 348, 350). Upon review, this order rules as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`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 518 Filed 02/22/23 Page 15 of 17
`
`Reasoning
`
`Sonos asks to seal an expert report on
`behalf of non-party Bose. Bose,
`however, did not file a supporting
`declaration as required by Local Rule 79-
`5(f). The request is denied.
`
`See entry for Dkt. No. 346-2.
`
`Google asks to seal general, technical
`information regarding its systems
`(Kaplan Decl.). Google fails to
`adequately explain how disclosure of this
`high-level information could allow a
`third-party to understand its system in
`enough detail that it would cause it
`competitive harm. The information is
`also central to the merits of this case.
`Google cites no authority indicating why
`this high-level information is sealable,
`particularly as much of the information
`relates to technology that is more than a
`decade old. See Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos,
`Inc., 2015 WL 5012679, at *5 (N.D. Cal.
`Aug. 24, 2015) (Judge William H.
`Orrick). The public’s interest in
`disclosure therefore outweighs Google’s
`interest in sealing.
`
`Google asks to seal information related
`to third-party license agreements, public
`disclosure of which may cause Google
`harm (Kaplan Decl.).
`
`
`Sonos asks to seal confidential
`information regarding its systems,
`disclosure of which may cause Sonos
`harm (Richter Decl.).
`Sonos seeks to seal general, technical
`information regarding its systems (Dkt.
`Nos. 356–37). Sonos’s support for
`sealing is insufficient because it is
`overbroad and nonspecific. Given the
`nature of the information at issue, Sonos
`does not describe with particularity how
`disclosure of this general information
`
`
`
`Dkt.
`No.
`346-2
`
`Document to be
`Sealed
`Exh. 2 to Caridis
`Decl.
`
`Result
`
`DENIED.
`
`346-3
`
`347-3;
`350-4
`
`Exh. 3 to Caridis
`Decl.
`Exh. 6 (Part 1)
`
`DENIED.
`
`DENIED.
`
`347-4;
`350-5
`
`Exh. 6 (Part 2)
`
`GRANTED.
`
`348-3
`
`Exh. 4 to Caridis
`Decl.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`350-2
`
`Exh. 1 to Kaplan
`Decl.
`
`DENIED.
`
`15
`
`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
`
`Nort