Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 575 Filed 12/16/19 Page 1 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`Case No. 18-md-02834-BLF
`
`OMNIBUS ORDER RE: SEALING
`MOTIONS AT ECF 540 AND ECF 549
`
`[Re: ECF 540, 549]
`
`
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`[Re: ECF 154, 160]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`[Re: ECF 66, 70]
`
`
`
`IN RE: PERSONALWEB
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC ET AL., PATENT
`LITIGATION
`AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON
`WEB SERVICES, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`v.
`
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`and LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`
`Defendants,
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`a Texas limited liability company, and
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, a
`Delaware limited liability company,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`
`TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC. a Delaware
`corporation,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Before the Court are administrative motions field by PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC
`
`(“PersonalWeb”) and Amazon.com, Inc., and Amazon Web Services, Inc. (collectively, “Amazon”),
`
`and Twitch Interactive, Inc. (“Twitch”) to file under seal portions of their briefs and exhibits in
`
`connection with Amazon’s and Twitch’s motions for summary judgment. ECF 540, 549. For the
`
`reasons stated below, Amazon’s and Twitch’s motion to seal (ECF 540) is GRANTED IN PART
`
`and DENIED IN PART. PersonalWeb’s motion to seal (ECF 549) is GRANTED.
`
`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 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 575 Filed 12/16/19 Page 2 of 10
`
`
`
`I. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and
`
`documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of Honolulu,
`
`447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597
`
`& n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor
`
`of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122,
`
`1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more
`
`than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden of overcoming the
`
`presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public
`
`policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir.
`
`2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79.
`
`However, “while protecting the public’s interest in access to the courts, we must remain
`
`mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm
`
`their competitive interest.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228–29 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2013). Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the
`
`merits of a case” therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety,
`
`809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access
`
`to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often
`
`unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving to seal
`
`the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c).
`
`Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This standard requires a
`
`“particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is
`
`disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir.
`
`2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples
`
`of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476
`
`(9th Cir. 1992). A protective order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s
`
`previous determination that good cause exists to keep the documents sealed, see Kamakana, 447
`
`F.3d at 1179–80, but a blanket protective order that allows the parties to designate confidential
`
`2
`
`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 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 575 Filed 12/16/19 Page 3 of 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
`
`documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether each particular
`
`document should remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“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.”).
`
`In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal
`
`documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R.
`
`79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is
`
`“sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under
`
`the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must
`
`conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the
`
`submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable
`
`material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,”
`
`Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unredacted version of the document” that indicates “by highlighting
`
`or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted
`
`version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative Motion to File
`
`Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A)
`
`establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`The Court has reviewed the parties’ sealing motions and the declarations of the designating
`
`parties submitted in support thereof. The Court finds that the parties have articulated compelling
`
`reasons to seal certain portions of the submitted documents. The proposed redactions are generally
`
`narrowly tailored. The Court’s rulings on the sealing requests are set forth in the tables below.
`
`A. ECF 540 RE Amazon’s and Twitch’s Motions for Summary Judgment
`
`
`
`ECF
`No.
`
`540-5
`(543-1)
`
`Document to be Sealed:
`
`Result
`
`Reasoning
`
`Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of
`Saina S. Shamilov in support of
`Motion of Amazon.com, Inc.,
`and Amazon Web Services,
`
`GRANTED
`as to the
`entire
`document.
`
`Exhibit 1 comprises, among other
`things, highly sensitive information
`about the technical design and
`operation of Twitch’s services,
`
`3
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 575 Filed 12/16/19 Page 4 of 10
`
`
`
`ECF
`No.
`
`Document to be Sealed:
`
`Result
`
`Reasoning
`
`Inc. for Summary Judgment of
`Noninfringement and Motion
`of Twitch Interactive, Inc. for
`Summary Judgment of
`Noninfringement and to
`Exclude the Testimony of Erik
`de la Iglesia (“Shamilov
`Declaration” at ECF 543)
`
`Technical Report of
`PersonalWeb’s expert Erik de
`la Iglesia on infringement
`
`540-6
`(543-2)
`
`Exhibit 2 to Shamilov
`Declaration
`
`Responsive Report of Amazon
`and Twitch’s expert Dr. Jon B.
`Weissman on non-infringement
`
`GRANTED
`as to the
`entire
`document.
`
`including without limitation the
`characterization by PersonalWeb’s
`expert of Twitch’s confidential and
`proprietary source code and excerpts of
`depositions of Twitch’s technical
`witnesses. Both this highly confidential
`source code and the deposition
`transcripts have been designated under
`the Stipulated Protective Order and
`consist of sensitive information that
`Twitch maintains as confidential and
`does not reveal to the general public.
`See Declaration of Ravi R. Ranganath
`(“Ranganath Decl.) ¶¶ 3-6, ECF 540-1.
`
`Exhibit 2 comprises, among other
`things, highly sensitive information
`about the technical design and
`operation of the Amazon and Twitch
`services, including without limitation
`the characterization by Amazon and
`Twitch’s expert of Amazon and Twitch
`confidential and proprietary source
`code and excerpts of depositions of
`technical witnesses. Both this highly
`confidential source code and the
`deposition transcripts have been
`designated under the Stipulated
`Protective Order and consist of
`sensitive information that Amazon and
`Twitch maintain as confidential and do
`not reveal to the general public.
`
`Disclosure of this non-public highly
`confidential information would put
`Amazon and Twitch at undue risk of
`serious harm by revealing trade secrets
`and confidential information that may
`put Amazon and Twitch at a
`disadvantage relative to competitors
`and competing services. See Ranganath
`Decl. ¶¶ 7-10.
`
`540-7
`(543-4)
`
`Exhibit 4 to Shamilov
`Declaration
`
`Excerpt from the July 26, 2019
`
`GRANTED
`as to the
`entire
`document.
`
`Exhibit 4 reflect sensitive business
`information. Specifically, Exhibit 4 is
`an excerpt of deposition testimony
`regarding non-public aspects of the
`
`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 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 575 Filed 12/16/19 Page 5 of 10
`
`
`
`ECF
`No.
`
`Document to be Sealed:
`
`Result
`
`Reasoning
`
`deposition transcript of James
`Richard
`
`570-8
`(543-7)
`
`Exhibit 7 to Shamilov
`Declaration
`
`Excerpt from the deposition
`transcript of Ronald Lachman
`from PersonalWeb Techs.,
`LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No.
`6:12-CV-00663 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`GRANTED
`as to the
`entire
`document.
`
`internal operation of Twitch’s web
`servers. Disclosure of this non-public
`highly confidential information would
`put Twitch at undue risk of serious
`harm by revealing trade secrets and
`confidential business information that
`may put Twitch at a disadvantage
`relative to competitors and competing
`services. See Ranganath Decl. ¶¶ 11-
`13.
`
`This exhibit contains excerpts of
`testimony from the Lachman
`Deposition regarding non-public
`aspects of the business negotiations
`between Kinetech, Inc. and Digital
`Island, Inc. Additionally, these
`deposition excerpts were previously
`designated as Confidential in the prior
`action, PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v.
`Microsoft Corp., No. 6:12-cv-00663-
`LED (E.D. Tex.). Disclosure of non-
`public details regarding the negotiation
`and business deadlines between Digital
`Island and Kinetech, would put
`PersonalWeb at a competitive
`disadvantage. See Declaration of
`Viviana Boero Hedrick (“Hedrick
`Decl.”) ¶¶ 3-7, ECF 568.
`
`540-4
`(541)
`
`Portions of Amazon’s
`Memorandum of Points and
`Authorities in Support of
`Motion of Amazon.com, Inc.
`and Amazon Web Services,
`Inc. for Summary Judgment on
`Noninfringement
`
`DENIED as
`to the excerpt
`found at
`page:line
`nos.: 14:7-
`14:11
`
`The designating party, PersonalWeb,
`has not requested to maintain under
`seal the designated portions of
`Amazon’s Motion for Summary
`Judgment. See Ranganath Decl. ¶ 14;
`see also generally, Hedrick Decl.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`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 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 575 Filed 12/16/19 Page 6 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`B. ECF 549 PersonalWeb’s Responsive Briefs
`
`ECF No.
`
`Document to be Sealed:
`
`Result
`
`Reasoning
`
`549-4
`(555)
`
`PersonalWeb’s Non-
`Opposition to Amazon.com,
`Inc. and Amazon Web
`Services, Inc.’s Motion for
`Summary Judgement of
`Noninfringement and
`Opposition to Motion
`Regarding Standing
`(“Response to Amazon”)
`
`GRANTED
`as to line
`nos.: 14:14-
`15. 14:21-23,
`14:25, 26,
`15:6-7, 15:9-
`10.
`
`549-6
`(555-1)
`
`Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of
`Michael A. Sherman in
`Support of PersonalWeb’s
`Response to Amazon
`(“Sherman Declaration”) is
`the unsigned de la Iglesia
`Declaration.
`
`GRANTED
`as to the
`entire
`document.
`
`PersonalWeb’s Response to Amazon
`contains excerpts from the January 17,
`2014 deposition transcript of Ronald
`Lachman from PersonalWeb
`Technologies, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. 6:12-cv-00663-LED. It contains
`excerpts of testimony from the
`Lachman Deposition regarding non-
`public aspects of the business
`negotiations between Kinetech, Inc.
`and Digital Island, Inc. Disclosure of
`non-public details regarding the
`negotiation and business deadlines
`between Digital Island and Kinetech,
`would put PersonalWeb at a
`competitive disadvantage with respect
`to competitors and competing services.
`See Declaration of Viviana Boero
`Hedrick (“Hedrick Decl. III) ¶¶ 2,4-6,
`ECF 549-1.
`
`The unsigned Declaration of Erik de la
`Iglesia contains references and analysis
`to Twitch’s source code. It contains
`the impressions and analysis of
`PersonalWeb’s technical expert, Erik
`de la Iglesia vis-à-vis Twitch’s source
`code. Mr. de la Iglesia’s unsigned
`Declaration and Redacted Technical
`Expert Report include references to,
`and analysis of, Twitch’s propriety
`source code. See Hedrick Decl. III ¶¶
`2-3.
`
`The unsigned declaration of
`PersonalWeb’s expert Erik de la
`Iglesia attached as Exhibit 2 to the
`Sherman Declaration reflects
`Amazon’s confidential and sensitive
`business information. It contains
`references to and characterizations of
`the source code used by Amazon’s
`CloudFront service, and a description
`of the operation of CloudFront based,
`
`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 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 575 Filed 12/16/19 Page 7 of 10
`
`
`
`ECF No.
`
`Document to be Sealed:
`
`Result
`
`Reasoning
`
`purportedly, on Mr. de la Iglesia’s
`review of Amazon’s confidential
`technical documents and the testimony
`of Amazon witnesses. The sensitive
`business information represents
`Amazon’s trade secrets regarding the
`design and operation of the CloudFront
`service and its cloud servers. It
`includes competitively sensitive
`information regarding the technical
`design and operation of the accused
`CloudFront service, the disclosure of
`which would put Amazon at a
`competitive disadvantage with respect
`to competitors and competing services.
`The way that CloudFront internally
`operates and handles requests is
`competitively sensitive because, for
`example, a competitor content delivery
`network could seek to improve their
`servers’ efficiency and performance by
`mimicking CloudFront’s internal
`caching techniques. Public disclosure
`of this highly confidential information
`would put Amazon at undue risk of
`serious harm by revealing trade secrets
`and confidential operational
`information that may put them at a
`competitive disadvantage relative to
`competitors and competing services.
`See Declaration of Ravi R. Ranganath
`(“Ranganath Decl. II), ¶¶ 3-4, 6-8,
`ECF 556.
`
`The Redacted Technical Expert Report
`of Erik de la Iglesia, dated August 23,
`2019, contains references and analysis
`to Twitch’s source code. It contains the
`impressions and analysis of
`PersonalWeb’s technical expert, Erik
`de la Iglesia vis-à-vis Twitch’s source
`code. Mr. de la Iglesia’s unsigned
`Declaration and Redacted Technical
`Expert Report include references to,
`and analysis of, Twitch’s propriety
`source code. See Hedrick Decl. III ¶¶
`2-3.
`
`GRANTED
`as to the
`entire
`document.
`
`549-7 Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of
`Erik de la Iglesia in Support
`of PersonalWeb’s Response to
`Twitch (“de la Iglesia
`Declaration” at ECF 551-1) is
`the redacted Technical Expert
`Report of Erik de la Iglesia,
`dated August 23, 2019
`(“Redacted de la Iglesia
`Expert Report”).
`
`7
`
`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 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 575 Filed 12/16/19 Page 8 of 10
`
`
`
`ECF No.
`
`Document to be Sealed:
`
`Result
`
`Reasoning
`
`
`The Redacted de la Iglesia Expert
`Report attached as Exhibit 1 to the de
`la Iglesia Declaration reflects Twitch’s
`confidential and sensitive business
`information. It contains references to
`and characterizations of Twitch’s
`proprietary source code and excerpts of
`the deposition testimony of Twitch’s
`technical witnesses. It represents
`Twitch’s trade secrets regarding the
`operations of its servers and source
`code. The way that Twitch designed
`the backend for its website to achieve
`top performance is competitively
`sensitive because a competitor could,
`for example, seek to improve their
`website’s performance by replicating
`Twitch’s combination of different
`software packages. Disclosure of non-
`public details regarding the operation
`of Twitch’s services would put Twitch
`at a competitive disadvantage with
`respect to competitors and competing
`services. See Declaration of Todd R.
`Gregorian (“Gregorian Decl.”), ¶¶ 5-6,
`ECF 557.
`
`This document contains excerpts from
`the January 17, 2014 deposition
`transcript of Ronald Lachman from
`PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC v.
`Microsoft Corp., No. 6:12-cv-00663-
`LED. It contains excerpts of testimony
`from the Lachman Deposition
`regarding non-public aspects of the
`business negotiations between
`Kinetech, Inc. and Digital Island, Inc.
`Disclosure of non-public details
`regarding the negotiation and business
`deadlines between Digital Island and
`Kinetech, would put PersonalWeb at a
`competitive disadvantage with respect
`to competitors and competing services.
`See Hedrick Decl. III ¶¶ 2,4-6.
`
`GRANTED
`as to the
`entire
`document.
`
`549-8
`(550-6)
`
`Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of
`Viviana Boero Hedrick in
`Support of PersonalWeb’s
`Response to Amazon and
`Response to Twitch (“Hedrick
`Declaration II”) is excerpts
`from the January 17, 2014
`deposition of Ronald
`Lachman (“Lachman
`Deposition”).
`
`8
`
`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 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 575 Filed 12/16/19 Page 9 of 10
`
`
`
`ECF No.
`
`Document to be Sealed:
`
`Result
`
`Reasoning
`
`549-9
`(550-11)
`
`Exhibit 7 to the Hedrick
`Declaration II is excerpts
`from the October 1, 2019
`deposition transcript of James
`Richard (“Richard
`Deposition”).
`
`GRANTED
`as to the
`entire
`document.
`
`549-10
`(550-12)
`
`Exhibit 8 to the Hedrick
`Declaration II is excerpts
`from the July 24, 2019
`Amazon 30(b)(6) deposition
`transcript of Matthew
`Baldwin (“Baldwin
`Deposition”).
`
`GRANTED
`as to the
`entire
`document.
`
`9
`
`This exhibit contains excerpts of the
`deposition transcript of Twitch Senior
`Software Engineer and corporate
`designee James Richard. In this
`testimony, Mr. Richard provides
`nonpublic and proprietary information
`concerning the operation of Twitch’s
`servers. Disclosure of this information
`would put Twitch at a competitive
`disadvantage with respect to
`competitors and competing services.
`See Gregorian Decl. ¶ 7.
`
`This exhibit contains excerpts of the
`deposition transcript of Amazon
`Principal Engineer and corporate
`designee Matthew Baldwin. In this
`testimony, Mr. Baldwin provides non-
`public and proprietary information
`regarding the operation of Amazon
`Web Services’ CloudFront service.
`The sensitive business information
`which PersonalWeb seeks to file under
`seal meets this standard, as it
`represents Amazon’s trade secrets
`regarding the design and operation of
`the CloudFront service and its cloud
`servers. It includes competitively
`sensitive information regarding the
`technical design and operation of the
`accused CloudFront service, the
`disclosure of which would put Amazon
`at a competitive disadvantage with
`respect to competitors and competing
`services. The way that CloudFront
`internally operates and handles
`requests is competitively sensitive
`because, for example, a competitor
`content delivery network could seek to
`improve their servers’ efficiency and
`performance by mimicking
`CloudFront’s internal caching
`techniques. Public disclosure of this
`highly confidential information would
`put Amazon at undue risk of serious
`harm by revealing trade secrets and
`confidential operational information
`
`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 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 575 Filed 12/16/19 Page 10 of 10
`
`
`
`ECF No.
`
`Document to be Sealed:
`
`Result
`
`Reasoning
`
`that may put them at a competitive
`disadvantage relative to competitors
`and competing services. See Ranganath
`Decl. II ¶¶ 3, 5-8.
`
`III. ORDER
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Amazon’s and Twitch’s motion to seal (ECF 540) is GRANTED
`
`IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Amazon is instructed to file an unredacted copy of its Motion
`
`for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement publicly no later than December 23, 2019.
`
`PersonalWeb’s motion to seal (ECF 549) is GRANTED.
`
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`Dated: December 16, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`______________________________________
`BETH LABSON FREEMAN
`United States District Judge
`
`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
`
`