Opinion
Case No.: 5:12-cv-003305-LHK
08-14-2013
KEITH DUNBAR, individually and on Behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE, INC., Defendant.
ORDER RE: RENEWED
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
SEAL
On August 28, 2012, Plaintiff Keith Dunbar ("Plaintiff") filed his Motion for Leave to File His Third Amended Class Action Complaint ("Motion for Leave to Amend"). ECF No. 205. Defendant Google, Inc. ("Google") sought to seal portions of Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend; Proposed Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"); Google's Opposition to the Motion for Leave to Amend; Plaintiff's Reply; and a number of exhibits submitted by the parties in connection with their briefs addressing the Motion for Leave to Amend. See ECF Nos. 204, 208, 210, 213, 214. The Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part Google's sealing requests. See ECF No. 227 ("First Sealing Order"). The Court denied with prejudice several requests to seal Google documents designated "Confidential" or "Confidential Attorneys' Eyes Only" because Google agreed that the information did not need to be sealed. See First Sealing Order at 4, 11. The remaining denials to seal were without prejudice. See id. at 12.
On page 11 of the First Sealing Order, the Court erroneously denied without prejudice Plaintiff's requests to seal: (1) Motion for Leave to Amend pages 4:26, 5:1-2, 5:8-10, 5:17-19, 7:14-19, 9:25, and 10:26-27, and (2) Exhibit P to the Rommel Declaration. Because Google does not wish to seal these Google documents that were designated "Confidential" or "Confidential Attorney's Eyes Only," the Court hereby denies Plaintiff's request to seal these documents with prejudice. Id. at 11. Google has not, in its Renewed Motion to Seal, requested that these excerpts be sealed.
Presently before the Court is Google's renewed Motion to Seal: (1) portions of the Motion for Leave to Amend; (2) portions of Plaintiff's proposed TAC; (3) portions of Google's Opposition to the Motion for Leave to Amend; (4) portions of the deposition testimony of Thompson Gawley, which were attached as: (i) Exhibit A to the Declaration of Whitty Somvichian in Support of Google's Opposition, and (ii) Exhibit O to the Declaration of Sean F. Rommel in Support of the Motion for Leave to Amend; (5) portions of Plaintiff's Reply; and (6) Exhibits F and G to the Declaration of F. Jerome Tapley in Support of the Motion for Leave to Amend. ECF No. 230 ("Renewed Motion to Seal"). Also before the Court is Google's Motion seeking to seal portions of the final TAC. ECF No. 234 ("Motion to Seal the TAC") (collectively, "Motions to Seal"). The Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Google's Motions to Seal.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Courts have recognized a "general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents." Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). "Unless a particular court record is one 'traditionally kept secret,' a 'strong presumption in favor of access' is the starting point. Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). In order to overcome this strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must articulate justifications for sealing that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure. See id. at 1178-79. Because the public's interest in non-dispositive motions is relatively low, a party seeking to seal a document attached to a non-dispositive motion need only demonstrate "good cause." Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (applying "good cause" standard to all non-dispositive motions, because such motions "'are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action'" (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179)).
Conversely, "the resolution of a dispute on the merits, whether by trial or summary judgment, is at the heart of the interest in ensuring the 'public's understanding of the judicial process and of significant public events.'" Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Valley Broadcasting Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Nev., 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986)). Thus, a party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion or presented at trial must articulate "compelling reasons" in favor of sealing. See id. at 1178. "In general, 'compelling reasons' . . . exist when such 'court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,' such as the use of records to . . . release trade secrets." Id. at 1179 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). The Ninth Circuit has adopted the Restatement's definition of "trade secret" for purposes of sealing, holding that "[a] 'trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one's business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it." In re Electronic Arts, 298 Fed. App'x 568, 569-70 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Restatement of Torts § 757, cmt. b). Additionally, "compelling reasons" may exist if sealing is required to prevent judicial documents from being used "'as sources of business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing.'" Id. at 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598).
Accordingly, the Court applies the "compelling reasons" standard to Google's requests to seal the TAC and the proposed TAC because the TAC forms the "foundation" of Plaintiff's lawsuit against Google. See In re NVIDIA Corp. Derivative Litig., C 06-06110 SBA, 2008 WL 1859067, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2008) (holding that the "compelling reasons" standard applied to complaint because, "[w]hile a complaint is not, per se, the actual pleading by which a suit may be disposed of, it is the root, the foundation, the basis by which a suit arises and must be disposed of"). Because the other documents Google seeks to seal do not form the foundation of Plaintiff's lawsuit and are non-dispositive, the Court applies the good cause standard. See First Sealing Order at 3 (citing Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678 (applying "good cause" standard to all non-dispositive motions)).
Plaintiff filed the proposed TAC with his Motion for Leave to Amend. After leave was granted, Plaintiff filed the TAC.
II. DISCUSSION
In the Renewed Motion to Seal and Motion to Seal the TAC, Google has narrowed its sealing requests and set forth with particularity its basis for sealing portions of the TAC; Motion for Leave to Amend; Opposition; Reply; and exhibits submitted with these documents. See Declaration of Deepak Jindal in Support of Renewed Motion to Seal, ECF No. 231 ("Jindal Decl.") at 9-15. The Court having reviewed Google's Motions to Seal and the supporting declaration of Deepak Jindal rules as follows:
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Document ¦Line/Page ¦Ruling ¦ +------------------------+-----------------+----------------------------------¦ ¦TAC and Proposed TAC ¦ ¦DENIED. This information has ¦ ¦(Jindal ¦ ¦already ¦ ¦ ¦Page 9, lines 5-6¦ ¦ ¦Decl., Ex. B) ¦ ¦been publicly disclosed. See Tr.¦ ¦ ¦ ¦at 33:5-8. ¦ +------------------------+-----------------+----------------------------------¦ ¦TAC and Proposed TAC ¦Page 6, lines 14 ¦ ¦ ¦(Jindal ¦ ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦ ¦and 18 ¦ ¦ ¦Decl., Ex. B) ¦ ¦ ¦ +------------------------+-----------------+----------------------------------¦ ¦Motion for Leave to ¦Page 10, line 15-¦ ¦ ¦Amend ¦ ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦ ¦17, 22 ¦ ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl., Ex. A) ¦ ¦ ¦ +------------------------+-----------------+----------------------------------¦ ¦Motion for Leave to ¦ ¦DENIED. This information has ¦ ¦Amend ¦Page 10, line 24-¦already ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl., Ex. A) ¦25 ¦been publicly disclosed. See Tr.¦ ¦ ¦ ¦at 33:5-8. ¦ +------------------------+-----------------+----------------------------------¦ ¦Motion for Leave to ¦Page 11, lines ¦ ¦ ¦Amend ¦10- ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl., Ex. A) ¦11 ¦ ¦ +------------------------+-----------------+----------------------------------¦ ¦Motion for Leave to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Amend ¦Page 17, line 11 ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl., Ex. A) ¦ ¦ ¦ +------------------------+-----------------+----------------------------------¦ ¦Motion for Leave to ¦Page 5, lines 15-¦ ¦ ¦Amend ¦ ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦ ¦17, 22 ¦ ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl., Ex. A) ¦ ¦ ¦ +------------------------+-----------------+----------------------------------¦ ¦Opposition (Jindal ¦Page 4, lines 22-¦ ¦ ¦Decl., Ex. C) ¦ ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦ ¦23 ¦ ¦ +------------------------+-----------------+----------------------------------¦ ¦Opposition (Jindal ¦Page 5, lines ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦Decl., Ex. C) ¦5-6, 7 ¦ ¦ +------------------------+-----------------+----------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦Page 203, lines ¦ ¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson ¦5- ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦Gawley ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦6, 9-10, 16-17 ¦ ¦ +------------------------+-----------------+----------------------------------¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson ¦Page 191, lines ¦ ¦ ¦Gawley ¦4- ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl., Ex. D) ¦5, 13, 21-22 ¦ ¦ +------------------------+-----------------+----------------------------------¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Gawley ¦Page 193, line 23¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl., Ex. D) ¦ ¦ ¦ +------------------------+-----------------+----------------------------------¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson ¦Page 195, lines ¦ ¦ ¦Gawley ¦ ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦ ¦10-13, 16-19, 22-¦ ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl., Ex. D) ¦ ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Line 7 is not identified in the Jindal Declaration. However, this line is redacted in Google's proposed redacted Opposition. See ECF No. 231-1 at 5. Moreover, the redacted information is the same type of confidential information that Google has sought to seal and that this Court finds meets the good cause standard for sealing.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦23 ¦ ¦ +------------------------+---------------+------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦Page 199, lines¦ ¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Gawley ¦14-15, 17-21, ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦ ¦23- ¦ ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl., Ex. D) ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦25 ¦ ¦ +------------------------+---------------+------------------------------------¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Gawley ¦Page 200, line ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦ ¦8 ¦ ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl., Ex. D) ¦ ¦ ¦ +------------------------+---------------+------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. This information has already¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Gawley ¦Page 200, line ¦been publicly disclosed. See Tr. ¦ ¦ ¦8 ¦at 31:20- ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl., Ex. D) ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦32:2. ¦ +------------------------+---------------+------------------------------------¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson ¦Page 200, lines¦ ¦ ¦Gawley ¦ ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦ ¦19-25 ¦ ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl., Ex. D) ¦ ¦ ¦ +------------------------+---------------+------------------------------------¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson ¦Page 201, lines¦ ¦ ¦Gawley ¦9, ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl., Ex. D) ¦23-25 ¦ ¦ +------------------------+---------------+------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦Page 202, lines¦ ¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson ¦2, ¦ ¦ ¦Gawley ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦4-10, 12-13, ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl., Ex. D) ¦16, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦23 ¦ ¦ +------------------------+---------------+------------------------------------¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson ¦Page 204, lines¦ ¦ ¦Gawley ¦ ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦ ¦10-11, 14-19, ¦ ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl., Ex. D) ¦24 ¦ ¦ +------------------------+---------------+------------------------------------¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson ¦Page 205, lines¦ ¦ ¦Gawley ¦9, ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl., Ex. D) ¦14, 21, 25 ¦ ¦ +------------------------+---------------+------------------------------------¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson ¦Page 206, lines¦ ¦ ¦Gawley ¦1, ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl., Ex. D) ¦8-9 ¦ ¦ +------------------------+---------------+------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦Page 207, lines¦ ¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson ¦4- ¦ ¦ ¦Gawley ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦5, 12-13, ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl., Ex. D) ¦15-17, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦20-22 ¦ ¦ +------------------------+---------------+------------------------------------¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson ¦Page 208, lines¦ ¦ ¦Gawley ¦2, ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl., Ex. D) ¦11-13, 15-16 ¦ ¦ +------------------------+---------------+------------------------------------¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson ¦Page 209, lines¦ ¦ ¦Gawley ¦ ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦ ¦15-18, 20, 24 ¦ ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl., Ex. D) ¦ ¦ ¦ +------------------------+---------------+------------------------------------¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson ¦Page 210, lines¦ ¦ ¦Gawley ¦1, ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl., Ex. D) ¦6-7, 17-18, 22 ¦ ¦ +------------------------+---------------+------------------------------------¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson ¦Page 211, lines¦ ¦ ¦Gawley ¦ ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦ ¦10-11, 22 ¦ ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl., Ex. D) ¦ ¦ ¦ +------------------------+---------------+------------------------------------¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson ¦Page 212, lines¦ ¦ ¦Gawley ¦1- ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl., Ex. D) ¦2, 4, 18 ¦ ¦ +------------------------+---------------+------------------------------------¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson ¦Page 213, lines¦ ¦ ¦Gawley ¦3, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl., Ex. D) ¦6-7, 9-17, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦19-20 ¦ ¦ +------------------------+---------------+------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦Page 216, lines¦ ¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson ¦6- ¦ ¦ ¦Gawley ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦7, 10, 13-14, ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl., Ex. D) ¦19- ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦20 ¦ ¦ +------------------------+---------------+------------------------------------¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson ¦Page 221, lines¦ ¦ ¦Gawley ¦5- ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl., Ex. D) ¦7 ¦ ¦ +------------------------+---------------+------------------------------------¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson ¦Page 222, lines¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦Gawley ¦ ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Lines 9 and 14 are not identified in the Jindal Declaration. However, these lines are redacted in Google's proposed redacted Opposition. See ECF No. 231-4 at 205. Moreover, the redacted information is the same type of confidential information that Google has sought to seal and that this Court finds meets the good cause standard for sealing.
--------
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦(Jindal Decl., Ex. D) ¦10-11 ¦ ¦ +----------------------------------+------------+-----------------------------¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson Gawley ¦Page 223, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦lines ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl., Ex. D) ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦10-13 ¦ ¦ +----------------------------------+------------+-----------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. While these lines are¦ ¦ ¦ ¦identified ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦for sealing in the Jindal ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration, they ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Page 82, ¦are not redacted in Google's ¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson Gawley ¦lines 3- ¦publicly filed, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl., Ex. D) ¦4, 17, 23-24¦proposed redacted Opposition.¦ ¦ ¦ ¦See ECF ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦No. 231-4 at 82. Thus, the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦information has ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦been publicly available for ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦months. ¦ +----------------------------------+------------+-----------------------------¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson Gawley ¦Page 83, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦lines 5- ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl., Ex. D) ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦14 ¦ ¦ +----------------------------------+------------+-----------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. This information has ¦ ¦ ¦Page 4, ¦already ¦ ¦ ¦lines 15- ¦ ¦ ¦Reply (Jindal Decl., Ex. E) ¦ ¦been publicly disclosed. ¦ ¦ ¦19, 21-22 ¦See Tr. at 31:20- ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦32:2. ¦ +----------------------------------+------------+-----------------------------¦ ¦Reply (Jindal Decl., Ex. E) ¦Page 4, ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦ ¦lines 4-8 ¦ ¦ +----------------------------------+------------+-----------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. This information has ¦ ¦ ¦Page 5, ¦already ¦ ¦ ¦lines 1-2, ¦ ¦ ¦Reply (Jindal Decl., Ex. E) ¦ ¦been publicly disclosed. ¦ ¦ ¦16 ¦See Tr. at 31:20- ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦32:2. ¦ +----------------------------------+------------+-----------------------------¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson Gawley ¦Page 100, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦lines 6- ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl, Ex. F) ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦7, 12-14 ¦ ¦ +----------------------------------+------------+-----------------------------¦ ¦ ¦Page 101, ¦ ¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson Gawley ¦lines 3- ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl, Ex. F) ¦4, 7-8, 11, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦14, 19 ¦ ¦ +----------------------------------+------------+-----------------------------¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson Gawley ¦Page 103, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦lines 3- ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl, Ex. F) ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦4, 15, 22 ¦ ¦ +----------------------------------+------------+-----------------------------¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson Gawley ¦Page 104, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦lines 1- ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl, Ex. F) ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦2, 14-15 ¦ ¦ +----------------------------------+------------+-----------------------------¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson Gawley ¦Page 105, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦lines ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl, Ex. F) ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦15-17, 23 ¦ ¦ +----------------------------------+------------+-----------------------------¦ ¦ ¦Page 106, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦lines 2- ¦ ¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson Gawley ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦3, 7-8, ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl, Ex. F) ¦12-13, 16- ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦17, 21 ¦ ¦ +----------------------------------+------------+-----------------------------¦ ¦ ¦Page 176, ¦ ¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson Gawley ¦lines 1- ¦ ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl, Ex. F) ¦ ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦ ¦3, 16-18, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦22, 25 ¦ ¦ +----------------------------------+------------+-----------------------------¦ ¦ ¦Page 177, ¦ ¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson Gawley ¦lines 1- ¦ ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl, Ex. F) ¦ ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦ ¦5, 8, 11, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦14, 19 ¦ ¦ +----------------------------------+------------+-----------------------------¦ ¦ ¦Page 178, ¦ ¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson Gawley ¦lines 5- ¦ ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl, Ex. F) ¦ ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦ ¦7, 9-10, 12,¦ ¦ ¦ ¦15-18 ¦ ¦ +----------------------------------+------------+-----------------------------¦ ¦ ¦Page 199, ¦ ¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson Gawley ¦14-15, ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl, Ex. F) ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦17-21, 23-25¦ ¦ +----------------------------------+------------+-----------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. This information has ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦already ¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson Gawley ¦Page 200, ¦ ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl, Ex. F) ¦line 8 ¦been publicly disclosed. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦See Tr. at 31:20- ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦32:2. ¦ +----------------------------------+------------+-----------------------------¦ ¦ ¦Page 200, ¦ ¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson Gawley ¦lines ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl, Ex. F) ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦19-25 ¦ ¦ +----------------------------------+------------+-----------------------------¦ ¦ ¦Page 209, ¦ ¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson Gawley ¦lines ¦ ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl, Ex. F) ¦ ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦ ¦15-18, 20, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦24 ¦ ¦ +----------------------------------+------------+-----------------------------¦ ¦ ¦Page 210, ¦ ¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson Gawley ¦lines 1, ¦ ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl, Ex. F) ¦ ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦ ¦6-7, 17-18, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦22 ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. While these lines are ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦identified ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦for sealing in the Jindal ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration, they ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Page 82, ¦are not redacted in Google's ¦ ¦Deposition of Thompson Gawley ¦lines 3- ¦publicly filed, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦(Jindal Decl, Ex. F) ¦4, 17, 23-24¦proposed redacted Opposition. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦See ECF ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦No. 231-4 at 82. Thus, the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦information has ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦been publicly available for ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦months. ¦ +---------------------------------+------------+------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦N/A (seeking¦ ¦ ¦ ¦to ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit F to the Declaration of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦F. ¦seal ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦ ¦document in ¦ ¦ ¦Jerome Tapley ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦its ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦entirety) ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------+------------+------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦N/A (seeking¦ ¦ ¦ ¦to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit G to the Declaration of ¦seal ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦F. Jerome Tapley ¦document in ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦its ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦entirety) ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________
LUCY H. KOH
United States Distri Judge