Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 846 Filed 07/19/23 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SONOS, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`No. C 20-06754 WHA
`No. C 21-07559 WHA
`
`(Consolidated)
`
`ORDER RE NEW MOTIONS
`TO SEAL
`
`A prior order denied all pending motions to seal without prejudice, recognizing that they
`
`were plagued by deficiencies that other orders had cautioned the parties about, and that the vast
`
`majority of material the parties sought to seal had been discussed in open court during trial
`
`(Dkt. No. 817). That order allowed each party to file an omnibus motion to justify sealing any
`
`information that might still deserve secrecy from the public while explaining that overbroad
`
`requests would be denied in their entirety. It also required lead counsel to personally vet each
`
`and every request to seal, as to each and every argument, and to certify under oath that they
`
`had done so.
`
`Sonos has since submitted a tailored omnibus motion to seal excerpts of and references to
`
`a single licensing document, which it alleges was not shown to the jury or discussed in
`
`substantive detail in open court (Dkt. No. 831). The Court thanks Sonos and its lead counsel,
`
`Sean Sullivan and Clement Roberts, for honoring the letter and spirit of the prior order. Their
`
`specific requests to seal will be reviewed in due course.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 846 Filed 07/19/23 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`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
`
`Meanwhile, Google has since submitted a bloated omnibus motion that appears to include
`
`every single one of its prior requests to seal (Dkt. No. 832; see Dkt. Nos. 833–35). On the face
`
`of this motion, it is unclear what (if any) changes Google has made to its requests because its
`
`explanations are limited to paragraph numbers from an associate’s ten-page declaration, e.g.,
`
`“Ma Decl. ¶¶ 6, 7” (Dkt. No. 832 at 1; see Dkt. No. 832-1). Google has separately attached a
`
`one-page declaration of lead counsel Sean Pak stating that he “vetted each and every request to
`
`seal as to each and every argument” (Dkt. No. 832-2). This order suspects that Mr. Pak
`
`reviewed the omnibus motion and the associate’s declaration but did not himself sift through
`
`the thousands of pages of conditionally sealed exhibits that he expected the associate(s) and the
`
`Court to pore over.
`
`A preliminary perusal of those exhibits shows that the shortcomings have not been cured.
`
`By way of a random example, Google seeks to seal discussion of the “Onesie agent” from
`
`Sonos’s motion to strike (Dkt. Nos. 832 at 6; 833-21 at 15). It cites paragraph 19 of the
`
`associate’s declaration, thereby asserting that this is “highly confidential business information”
`
`(Dkt. Nos. 832 at 6; 832-1 ¶ 19). But the Onesie agent was the basis for an alleged non-
`
`infringing alternative of Google and was necessarily discussed in the Court’s public order on
`
`the motion to strike (see Dkt. No. 565 at 12). As such, discussion of the Onesie agent — along
`
`with a great deal of the material that Google still seeks to seal — goes to the heart of this case.
`
`There is a strong public interest in its disclosure.
`
`
`
`To be clear, this order does not fault the associate(s) who reviewed and amended
`
`Google’s requests to seal and put together the omnibus motion and declaration. Indeed, the
`
`Court is well-aware of the painstaking work that is required to review and amend such
`
`requests, because this is the painstaking work that is expected of the Court each time a motion
`
`to seal is filed. Note that hundreds have been filed in this case, and thousands have been filed
`
`by Google and its counsel in this district. Yet the prior order expressly requested lead
`
`counsel’s oversight. In light of this, lead counsel for Google should have taken a hard look at
`
`the documents that Google moved to seal and personally facilitated a significant narrowing of
`
`the sealing requests.
`
`2
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 846 Filed 07/19/23 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`Let’s try this one more time. For the foregoing reasons, Google’s omnibus motion to seal
`
`is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, as are the individual motions to seal that Google recently
`
`filed (Dkt. Nos. 826–27). If Google wishes to file a new omnibus motion, it must revisit its
`
`requests to seal once more. In such motion, for each and every request to seal, Google shall
`
`describe how it has narrowed its request (1) from the original request to seal and (2) from any
`
`revised request to seal. With respect to the basis for sealing, Google shall not use boilerplate
`
`answers but shall instead speak to specific information in specific passages that it seeks to seal.
`
`In addition, Google shall provide a declaration of Mr. Pak certifying under oath that he has
`
`vetted each and every request to seal, as to each and every argument, as to each and every
`
`passage that Google seeks to seal.
`
`Google shall file any new omnibus motion that justifies sealing information that may still
`
`deserve secrecy from the public, with the requested declaration, by JULY 31, 2023, at NOON.
`
`All material that the parties no longer seek to seal shall now be publicly refiled no later than
`
`AUGUST 14, 2023, at NOON.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`Dated: July 19, 2023.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WILLIAM ALSUP
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`3
`
`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
`
`