`
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 275 Filed 09/26/22 Page 1 of 2
`
`ANDREW V. TRASK
`(202) 434-5023
`atrask@wc.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VIA ECF
`
`September 26, 2022
`
`
`
`Hon. Paul G. Gardephe
`U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
`40 Foley Square, Room 2204
`New York, NY 10007
`
`
`Re: Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Google LLC, et al., Nos. 1:14-cv-2396-PGG-
`SN & 1:14-cv-9558-PGG-SN (S.D.N.Y.)
`
`
`Dear Judge Gardephe:
`
`I write on behalf of Defendants Google LLC and YouTube, LLC (collectively, “Google”)
`
`regarding the brief and four attachments filed under seal on September 23, 2022 at ECF No. 274
`by Plaintiff Network-1 Technologies, Inc. (“Network-1”). As Network-1’s counsel indicated in
`the request for leave to seal that filing (ECF No. 273), the brief and attachments include
`information that Google has designated “Confidential Outside Counsel Only” under the
`Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order. Pursuant to Rule II.B of the Court’s
`Individual Rules, Google respectfully submits this letter in order to explain in further detail why
`its interest in maintaining the confidentiality of certain commercially sensitive information
`reflected in the filing outweighs the “presumption of access” that generally attaches to judicial
`documents. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119–20 (2d Cir. 2006).
`Google has prepared a redacted version of the filing for Network-1 to file on the public docket,
`and Network-1 has confirmed that it does not object to the proposed redactions.
`
`First, the supplemental brief filed by Network-1 at ECF No. 274 references technical
`
`details regarding the design and operation of Google’s Content ID system that have not been
`disclosed publicly and that “may provide valuable insights into [the] company’s current business
`practices that a competitor would seek to exploit.” Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Sunny
`Merchandise Corp., 97 F. Supp. 3d 485, 511 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). The proposed redactions are
`narrowly drawn to these specific technical details about Google’s proprietary technologies and
`algorithms, and they do not conceal the parties’ contentions or legal arguments. See, e.g.,
`Kewazinga Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 1:18-cv-4500-GHW, 2021 WL 1222122, *7 (S.D.N.Y.
`Mar. 31, 2021) (evaluating a request in a patent infringement litigation to seal “confidential and
`proprietary data collection procedures, image processing procedures, specific hardware used to
`perform these procedures, and confidential details about … specific algorithms and the names of
`specific variables and functions in [the defendant’s] source code”).
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 275 Filed 09/26/22 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`September 26, 2022
`Page 2
`
`Second, the document labeled Exhibit 86 and filed at ECF No. 274-2 contains
`
`confidential data regarding computing resources used by certain Google systems as well as
`related internal financial metrics. Google may face an unfair competitive disadvantage if other
`technology companies can access confidential details regarding the resources dedicated to
`specific tasks and how Google accounts for them. See, e.g., New York v. Actavis, PLC, No. 14-
`cv-7473-RWS, 2014 WL 5353774, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2014) (observing that “[c]ost data is
`sensitive and potentially damaging if shared with competitors”). The document also describes
`several optimizations that Google software engineers developed or tested in connection with its
`Content ID system, and which likewise should not be disclosed to competitors. See, e.g.,
`GoSMiLE, Inc. v. Dr. Jonathan Levine, D.M.D. P.C., 769 F. Supp. 2d 630, 649–50 (S.D.N.Y.
`2011) (concluding that certain documents should remain sealed because “the privacy interests of
`the defendants” with respect to “proprietary material concerning … product development, costs
`and budgeting” should “outweigh the presumption of public access”). Because a significant
`majority of this ordinary-course document contains these kinds of information, Google has
`provided a slip sheet in lieu of a redacted version.
`
`Third, the deposition transcript excerpt labeled Exhibit 87 and filed at ECF No. 274-3
`
`includes testimony regarding the document referenced above and two other documents that
`describe non-public details about Google’s Content ID system and video processing
`infrastructure. Disclosure of this kind of non-public “technical information … could allow
`competitors an unfair advantage,” and it “would thus be highly prejudicial.” Kewazinga Corp.,
`2021 WL 1222122, *7. The proposed redactions are limited to the portions of the transcript that
`reflect information from these confidential documents or related technical details.
`
`Fourth, the supplemental expert report excerpt labeled Exhibit 88 and filed at ECF No.
`
`274-4 was previously filed on the public docket in redacted form at ECF No. 269-1 pursuant to a
`September 7, 2022 sealing motion (ECF No. 267) that was granted on September 22, 2022 (ECF
`No. 272). For the reasons stated in Google’s September 7 sealing motion, Google has applied
`the same redactions to the excerpt submitted by Network-1 with its supplemental brief.
`
`
`
`
`
`Sincerely,
`
`/s/ Andrew V. Trask
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Andrew V. Trask
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF)
`
`
`