MasterObjects, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 MASTEROBJECTS, INC., 11 Plaintiff, No. C 20-08103 WHA 12 v. 13 AMAZON.COM, INC., OMNIBUS ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL 14 Defendant. 15 16 17 This omnibus order addresses all currently pending motions to seal for completed motion 18 practice (Dkt. Nos. 174, 189, 199, 203, 224, 227, 230, 242, 247, 251, 264, 267, 268, 278, 279, 19 281, 289, 294, 296, 305, 336, 344, 345, 356, 357). 20 1. THE LEGAL STANDARD. 21 There is a strong public policy in favor of openness in our court system and the public is 22 entitled to know to whom we are providing relief (or not). See Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 23 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–80 (9th Cir. 2006). Consequently, access to motions and their 24 attachments that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only 25 upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 26 LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the 27 merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. The compelling 1 limine and Daubert motions can be strongly correlative to the merits of a case. Id. at 1098– 2 1100. 3 In addition, sealing motions filed in this district must contain a specific statement that 4 explains: (1) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (2) the injury that 5 will result should sealing be denied; and (3) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not 6 sufficient. The material requested to be sealed must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the 7 sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c). For example, “[t]he publication of materials that could 8 result in infringement upon trade secrets has long been considered a factor that would 9 overcome [the] strong presumption” in favor of access and provide compelling reasons for 10 sealing. Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011). Compelling reasons 11 may also warrant sealing for “sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s 12 competitive standing,” especially where the public has “minimal interest” in the information. 13 See Nixon v. Warner Comms., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). 14 Finally, “[s]upporting declarations may not rely on vague boilerplate language or 15 nebulous assertions of potential harm but must explain with particularity why any document or 16 portion thereof remains sealable under the applicable legal standard.” Bronson v. Samsung 17 Elecs. Am., Inc., 2019 WL 7810811, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 28, 2019) (citing Civ. L.R. 79-5). 18 “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain 19 documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are 20 sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c). 21 2. MOTIONS TO SEAL STEMMING FROM AMAZON’S MOTION TO STRIKE MASTEROBJECTS’ INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS. 22 A. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S 23 INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS. 24 Amazon moved to seal its motion to strike MasterObjects’ infringement contentions and 25 two exhibits (Dkt. No. 174). This order rules as follows: 26 Dkt. Document to be Result Reasoning No. Sealed 27 174-4 Defendant As to the Amazon seeks to seal statements Motion to Strike portions, confidential software architecture and 1 Plaintiff’s sealing is source code,” including software that 2 Infringement GRANTED. has been “considered and/or tested but Contentions not implemented” (Anderson Decl. ¶ 3 3). Amazon explains the references include nonpublic trade secrets where 4 disclosure would “cause serious competitive consequences to 5 Amazon’s business positioning” 6 (ibid.). Given the potential for competitive harm caused by the 7 information’s disclosure, sealing is warranted. 8 174-4 Exhibit A, Excerpts of As to the Amazon seeks to seal portions of 9 MasterObjects’ Second highlighted MasterObjects’ Second Amended 10 Supplemental portions, Infringement Contentions, including Disclosure of Asserted sealing is screenshots of Amazon’s confidential, 11 Claims and GRANTED. internal documents (Anderson Decl. ¶ Infringement 3). For the reasons provided in the 12 Contentions previous entry, sealing is warranted. 13 174-4 Exhibit B, Declaration As to the Amazon seeks to seal portions of a 14 of Grant Miller highlighted declaration from Grant Miller, an portions, Amazon engineer, which describes 15 sealing is “the functionality and/or architecture GRANTED. of Amazon’s software and source 16 code” (Anderson Decl. ¶ 3). For the 17 reasons provided in the previous entry, sealing is warranted. 18 B. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 19 STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS. 20 MasterObjects filed conditionally under seal its opposition to Amazon’s motion to strike 21 its infringement contentions and supporting documents (Dkt. No. 189). Amazon filed a filed a 22 supporting declaration for some of the documents (Dkt. No. 192). This order rules as follows: 23 Dkt. Document to be Result Reasoning No. Sealed 24 189-4 Opposition to Sealing as to Amazon seeks to seal statements 25 Defendant 5:20–24, “relat[ing] to Amazon’s highly Amazon.com, Inc.’s 7:27–8:26 is proprietary software—including 26 Motion to Strike GRANTED. information that Amazon maintains as Plaintiff’s trade secrets” (Anderson Decl. ¶ 3). 27 Infringement This order agrees that public Sealing as to internal documentation may harm 1 the rest is Amazon’s competitive standing. 2 DENIED. Amazon does not seek to seal the 3 other proposed redactions to the document (id. ¶ 4). With no 4 justification for keeping that material confidential, it will be unsealed. 5 189-6 Exhibit A, excerpt of Sealing is Amazon’s request to seal the entirety 6 letter from DENIED up of this exhibit is overbroad and MasterObjects’ until the contains material that clearly does not 7 counsel to Amazon’s sentence that qualify as confidential. This order counsel ends with will seal the statements directly 8 “that referencing Amazon’s software Amazon architecture and code (Anderson Decl. 9 produce ¶ 3). Discussion of Amazon’s method 10 these for technical document production documents does not qualify for sealing. 11 as actually maintained 12 in its wiki.” 13 Sealing as to 14 the rest of the 15 document is GRANTED. 16 189-8 Exhibit B, letter sent DENIED. Amazon does not seek to seal this 17 from MasterObjects exhibit (Anderson Decl.). With no counsel to Amazon’s justification for keeping it 18 counsel confidential, the exhibit will be unsealed. 19 189- Exhibit D, excerpt As to the Amazon seeks to seal statements 10 from a supplemental highlighted referencing its software architecture 20 set of Amazon’s portions, and code (Anderson Decl. ¶ 3). 21 interrogatory responses sealing is Potential harm to Amazon’s GRANTED. competitive standing stemming from 22 this information’s public release supports sealing. 23 24 C. PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 25 SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD WITH NEW FACTUAL MATERIAL ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S 26 INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS. 27 MasterObjects filed conditionally under seal its administrative motion for leave to 1 contentions. (Dkt. No. 199). Amazon filed a declaration in support of sealing some of the 2 documents (Dkt. No. 207). This order rules as follows: 3 Dkt. Document to be Result Reasoning No. Sealed 4 199-4 Plaintiff’s Motion for Sealing as to Amazon seeks to seal two statements 5 Leave to Supplement page 1:4–6 arising from “highly confidential is deposition testimony” by Amazon’s 6 GRANTED. 30(b)(6) witness, containing “confidential information about the 7 Sealing as to structure and operation of Amazon’s 8 1:10–13 is highly propriety software, hardware DENIED. structures, and source code” 9 (Anderson Decl. ¶ 3). The earlier statement contains information that 10 may qualify as trade secret information and is subject to sealing. 11 But the latter discussion of the 12 methods and tactics with respect to the code’s production is not. Sealing is 13 warranted in part. 14 199-6 Exhibit A, Deposition Sealing as to Amazon seeks to seal portions of its Transcript of 30(b)(6) highlighted Rule 30(b)(6) witness’s deposition 15 Witness portions of transcript that discuss Amazon’s trade 16 23:4–62:23 secret software architecture and source and 73:5– code (Anderson Decl. ¶ 4). This order 17 127:25 is finds disclosure of this material may GRANTED. cause Amazon competitive harm or 18 disclose trade secret information. Sealing as to 19 the rest is While trade secret information is 20 DENIED. subject to sealing, a technical witness’s testimony about how to 21 define a generic term would not cause Amazon competitive harm. That 22 information goes to the heart of this litigation, and the public interest 23 outweighs Amazon’s interest in 24 keeping that material sealed. The motion to seal as to that material is 25 DENIED. 26 27 D. DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S 1 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD WITH NEW FACTUAL MATERIAL ON DEFENDANT’S 2 MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS. 3 4 Amazon moved to seal its opposition to MasterObjects’ request to supplement the record 5 (Dkt. No. 203). This order rules as follows: 6 Dkt. Document to be Result Reasoning No. Sealed 7 203-4 Defendant’s As to the Amazon claims that the material to be 8 Opposition to highlighted sealed includes information about Plaintiff’s portions, “proprietary server configurations and 9 Administrative Motion sealing is source code” (Anderson Decl. ¶ 3). for Leave to GRANTED. Disclosure of this trade secret 10 Supplement information, Amazon argues, could 11 harm its competitive standing (ibid.). Finding the redactions narrowly 12 tailored, this order agrees. 13 14 3. MOTIONS TO SEAL STEMMING FROM AMAZON’S PRÉCIS REQUEST TO FILE SECOND MOTION TO STRIKE INFRINGEMENT 15 CONTENTIONS. 16 A. PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S PRÉCIS LETTER. 17 MasterObjects filed conditionally under seal its response to Amazon’s précis letter (Dkt. 18 No. 224). Amazon filed a declaration in support of sealing the document (Dkt. No. 231). This 19 order rules as follows: 20 Dkt. Document to be Result Reasoning No. Sealed 21 224-3 MasterObjects’ As to the Amazon moves to seal information 22 Response to Amazon’s highlighted related to “source code and database Précis Letter portions, structures undergirding [its] 23 sealing is autocomplete technology” (Anderson GRANTED. Decl. ¶ 3). The request is narrowly 24 tailored. Because disclosure of this information may harm Amazon’s 25 competitive standing and may disclose 26 information that qualifies as a trade secret, sealing is warranted. 27 B. THE DECLARATION OF THOMAS KING. 1 2 Amazon moved to seal portions of the declaration of Thomas King, filed in response to a 3 request for additional information regarding Amazon’s précis letter (Dkt. Nos. 225, 227). This 4 order rules as follows: 5 Dkt. Document to be Result Reasoning No. Sealed 6 227-4 Declaration of Thomas As to the Amazon moves to seal information 7 King highlighted from a deposition of its engineer portions, related to “the structure of [its] source 8 sealing is code” and “descriptive file names of GRANTED. specific source code files” (Anderson 9 Decl. ¶ 3). The request is narrowly 10 tailored. Because disclosure of this information may harm Amazon’s 11 competitive standing and may disclose information that qualifies as a trade 12 secret, sealing is warranted. 13 C. PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO COURT’S NOTICE AND REQUEST 14 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 15 MasterObjects filed conditionally under seal materials it submitted in response to the 16 Court’s notice and request for additional information regarding Amazon’s précis letter (Dkt. 17 Nos. 225, 230). Amazon filed a declaration in support of sealing the documents (Dkt. No. 18 235). As to the sealing requests, this order rules as follows: 19 Dkt. Document to be Result Reasoning No. Sealed 20 230-4 Exhibit A, ’628 Patent Sealing as to Amazon requests to seal information 21 Infringement Claim pages 8, 9, in the ’628 Patent Infringement Chart 10, 12–17, Contentions related to its 22 25–31, 37, autocomplete software, back-end 41–43, 45– systems, and functionality tests 23 77, and 80 is (Anderson Decl. ¶ 4). Amazon’s GRANTED. request is not, however, narrowly 24 tailored to cover only sealable 25 Motion to material. seal as to 26 pages 44 and On page 44, While trade secret 78 information is subject to sealing, a 27 GRANTED IN technical witness’s testimony about DENIED IN not cause Amazon competitive harm. 1 PART. That information goes to the heart of 2 this litigation, and the public interest outweighs Amazon’s interest in 3 keeping that material sealed. The motion to seal as to Miller’s testimony 4 at 71:13–72:24, is DENIED. The motion is GRANTED as to the other 5 highlighted portions of page 44. 6 For page 78, full portions of material 7 primarily related to discovery issues need not be sealed when the only 8 sealable material is internal, descriptive file names or internal 9 terms related to the source code. The 10 motion to seal is GRANTED as to the material in Section III on page 78. For 11 Section IV on page 78, the motion to seal is GRANTED as to source code 12 descriptive file names. (This decision may change should this material be 13 included in later filings.) Otherwise, 14 the motion is DENIED for the rest of the material in Section IV on page 78. 15 230-6 Exhibit B, Transcript Sealing as to Amazon requests to seal deposition of Grant Miller the testimony from witness Grant Miller 16 Deposition highlighted because the testimony describes 17 portions is Amazon’s system architecture, GRANTED. software, and specific code files 18 (Anderson Decl. ¶ 6). Because disclosure of this information may 19 harm Amazon’s competitive standing and may disclose information that 20 qualifies as a trade secret, sealing is 21 warranted. 230-8 Exhibit C, Declaration Sealing as to Amazon requests to seal portions of 22 of Spencer Hosie the the declaration of Spencer Hosie highlighted derived from witness testimony 23 portions is describing Amazon’s system 24 GRANTED. architecture, software, and specific code files (Anderson Decl. ¶ 7). 25 Because disclosure of this information may harm Amazon’s competitive 26 standing and may disclose information that qualifies as a trade secret, sealing 27 is warranted. 4. MOTIONS TO SEAL STEMMING FROM AMAZON’S PRÉCIS FOR 1 LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS. 2 A. DEFENDANT’S PRÉCIS FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS. 3 4 Amazon moved to seal portions of its précis for leave to file a motion for terminating 5 sanctions (Dkt. No. 242). MasterObjects opposed (Dkt. No. 248). Amazon replied (Dkt. No. 6 260). This order rules as follows: 7 Dkt. Document to be Sealed Result No. 8 242-4 Amazon’s Précis for Leave to File DENIED. 9 Motions for Terminating Sanctions 10 Reasoning MasterObjects declined to support sealing its information Amazon conditionally 11 lodged under seal (Dkt. No. 248), so the only disputed portion of the précis for 12 sealing is page 2, lines 32–33. Amazon argues MasterObjects’ CEO’s testimony “reflects sealable confidential information . . . of Amazon’s proprietary hardware 13 systems and source code” (Anderson Decl. ¶ 4). In contrast, MasterObjects’ argues that the quotation “does not constitute sensitive technical information” and 14 is subject to disclosure (Opp. at 2). First, as explained fully in Section 9 below, Amazon did not move to seal the unclean hands order — the order that ultimately 15 ruled on the dispute this filing addressed. That order was accordingly placed on 16 the public docket, which renders this motion, as to the relevant content at issue here, moot. Second, notwithstanding public filing of the unclean hands order, 17 Amazon’s support for sealing this document is insufficiently broad and generic. Given the nature of the information at issue, Amazon does not adequately explain 18 how the material would qualify as a trade secret. Furthermore, Amazon does not describe with particularity how disclosure of this fact would cause competitive 19 harm. It merely asserts a generic statement that disclosure would “allow a 20 competitor or other third party to understand or infer information about the inner workings of Amazon’s confidential source code” (ibid.). Again, in context, this 21 statement is insufficient. Amazon cites no authority indicating why this high-level information is sealable. See Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., 2015 WL 5012679, at *5 22 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2015) (Judge William H. Orrick). 23 B. PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S PRÉCIS FOR 24 LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS. 25 MasterObjects filed conditionally under seal portions of its response to Amazon’s précis 26 for leave to file a motion for terminating sanctions (Dkt. No. 247). Amazon filed a declaration 27 1 in support of sealing (Dkt. No. 253). MasterObjects opposed (Dkt. No. 261).* This order rules 2 as follows: 3 Dkt. Document to be Result Reasoning No. Sealed 4 247-4 MasterObjects’ DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 242-4. 5 Response to Amazon’s Précis for Leave to 6 File Motions for Terminating Sanctions 7 C. DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 8, 8 2022. 9 Amazon filed conditionally under seal portions of its response to the order dated 10 February 8, 2022, containing MasterObjects’ information (Dkt. No. 264). MasterObjects does 11 not seek to keep this information under seal (Dkt. No. 274). With no justification for keeping 12 this material confidential, the motion is DENIED and the material will be unsealed. 13 5. DEFENDANT’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF AND MATERIALS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. 14 15 Amazon moved to seal its responsive claim construction brief, which included material 16 deemed confidential by both parties (Dkt. No. 251). MasterObjects opposed all proposed 17 sealing (Dkt. No. 253). Because MasterObjects opposed sealing its own material, no 18 justification exists for keeping under seal the documents containing only MasterObjects’ 19 information. Consequently, the motion to seal as to Rayburn Declaration Exhibits BB, CC, 20 DD, EE, FF, GG, HH, II, and QQ, is DENIED. As to the remaining requests, this order rules as 21 follows: 22 Dkt. Document to be Result Reasoning 23 No. Sealed 251-3 Amazon’s Responsive DENIED. Because MasterObjects does not seek 24 Claim Construction to keep the material it had previously Brief designated as confidential under seal, 25 sealing as to all material highlighted in 26 yellow is DENIED. 27 1 Next, Amazon seeks to seal the 2 following portions of the document: p. 7, lines 5–9; p. 7, lines 23–24; p. 9, 3 line 27 to p.10, line 2; and p. 10, line 19. Amazon’s justification for sealing 4 here is that its claim construction arguments reveal information about its 5 system because Amazon distinguishes 6 the claim terms from its own system. But it does not explain with sufficient 7 detail how these abstract, general statements about the claim terms could 8 reveal information that would qualify as a trade secret. Nor does Amazon 9 adequately explain how disclosure of 10 this high-level information could allow a third-party to understand 11 Amazon’s system in enough detail that it would cause Amazon 12 competitive harm (see Anderson Decl. ¶ 4). Amazon’s motion to seal the 13 green highlighted portions of the 14 document is DENIED. 15 6. DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 16 DISQUALIFY COUNSEL. 17 Amazon filed conditionally under seal MasterObjects’ materials in its opposition to 18 MasterObjects’ motion for disqualification (Dkt. No. 281). MasterObjects does not seek to 19 keep this information under seal (Dkt. No. 291). With no justification for keeping this material 20 confidential, the motion is DENIED and the material will be unsealed. 21 7. MOTION TO SEAL STEMMING FROM AMAZON’S SPOLIATION MOTION. 22 A. DEFENDANT’S BRIEF REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S VIOLATION 23 OF THE DISCOVERY ORDER AND SPOLIATION 24 Amazon filed conditionally under seal portions of its brief regarding MasterObjects’ 25 alleged violation of the discovery order and spoliation (Dkt. No. 267). Specifically, Amazon’s 26 brief includes information about a settlement agreement reached between MasterObjects and 27 third-party eBay, Inc. in prior litigation (id. at 2). Notably, eBay submitted a declaration in 1 disclosure would impact eBay’s positioning in future settlement negotiations (Baker Decl. ¶ 5, 2 Dkt. No. 276). MasterObjects also filed a statement in support of sealing (Dkt. No. 284). 3 Upon review, this order finds the proposed redactions narrowly tailored. Further, the proposed 4 redactions address specific provisions of the settlement agreement that contain sensitive terms. 5 In light of all this, and the fact that both parties to the agreement submitted declarations in 6 support of sealing, this order concludes that material disclosure of this material may cause 7 eBay and/or MasterObjects competitive harm, and that the public interest in these particular 8 redactions is relatively low. Furthermore, no party herein has acted contrary to our local rules 9 and hence lost its ability to petition to seal its own information. This order rules as follows: 10 Dkt. No. Document to be Sealed Result 11 267-2 Amazon’s Brief Regarding MasterObjects’ Sealing as to the highlighted Violation of Discovery Order and Spoliation portions is GRANTED. 12 267-4 Declaration of Thomas B. King Sealing as to the highlighted 13 portions is GRANTED. 14 267-6 Exhibit 20, Email Communications Sealing in its entirety is 15 GRANTED. 16 B. DEFENDANT’S BRIEF REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S VIOLATION 17 OF THE DISCOVERY ORDER AND SPOLIATION. 18 Amazon conditionally filed under seal MasterObjects’ materials in its brief and 19 accompanying exhibits regarding MasterObjects’ violation of the discovery order and 20 spoliation (Dkt. No. 268). MasterObjects does not seek to keep this information under seal 21 (Dkt. No. 285). With no justification for keeping this material confidential, the motion is 22 DENIED and Amazon’s brief and Exhibits 4, 7, and 46 to the Declaration of Thomas B. King 23 will be unsealed. 24 25 26 27 8. MOTIONS TO SEAL STEMMING FROM AMAZON’S PRÉCIS 1 REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION TO STRIKE MASTEROBJECTS’ FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL INFRINGEMENT 2 CONTENTIONS. 3 A. DEFENDANT’S PRÉCIS REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINITFF’S INFRINGEMENT 4 CONTENTIONS. 5 Amazon seeks to seal portions of its précis seeking leave to file a motion to strike 6 MasterObjects’ fourth supplemental infringement contentions (Dkt. No. 289). Upon review, 7 this order finds the narrowly tailored redaction concerns the technical structure and 8 functionality of Amazon’s autocomplete system, the public disclosure of which may cause 9 Amazon competitive harm. Sealing as to the highlighted lines is GRANTED. 10 B. PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S PRÉCIS REQUEST. 11 12 MasterObjects filed conditionally under seal portions in its response to Amazon’s précis 13 seeking leave to file a motion to strike MasterObjects’ fourth supplemental infringement 14 contentions, which contained Amazon’s materials (Dkt. No. 294). Amazon filed a declaration 15 in support of sealing (Dkt. No. 300). Upon review, this order finds the narrowly tailored 16 redaction concerns the technical structure and functionality of Amazon’s autocomplete system, 17 the public disclosure of which may cause Amazon competitive harm. Sealing as to the 18 highlighted lines is GRANTED. 19 9. MOTIONS TO SEAL STEMMING FROM AMAZON’S MOTION FOR DISMISSAL AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS DUE TO 20 MASTEROBJECTS’ UNCLEAN HANDS. 21 This order turns next to the motions to seal stemming from Amazon’s motion to dismiss 22 due to MasterObjects’ unclean hands (Dkt. Nos. 278, 279, 296, 305, 344, 345). This order now 23 provides an overview of the sealing analysis for these documents. 24 The parties filed extensive briefing on whether material related to the unclean-hands 25 motion should be sealed. Consequently, the merits order denying Amazon’s motion was 26 originally filed under seal so the parties could move to keep specific portions confidential prior 27 to the order being placed on the public docket (Dkt. Nos. 359, 366). Despite the unclean hand 1 briefing, neither party moved to seal any part of the order, so it was filed on the public docket 2 in its entirety. 3 This decision changed the calculus for evaluating the sealing motions previously filed 4 with the parties’ briefing. This order, of course, need not consider sealing information in the 5 briefing that has made its way onto the public docket via the merits order. See Nixon, 435 U.S. 6 at 597. While this order will consider whether certain details not explicitly referenced by the 7 unclean hands order still merit sealing, the parties only provided general justifications that 8 applied to all their proposed redactions. Because the parties did not differentiate beyond broad 9 categories of information, this order has little factual basis on which to determine which details 10 may still actually merit sealing. A district courts must “articulate the factual basis for its 11 ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citation 12 omitted). 13 Overall, the motions to seal address three categories of material: (1) the parties’ 14 settlement discussions to resolve their previous litigation in 2011; (2) descriptions of Amazon’s 15 autocomplete system during the timeframe of the 2011 litigation; and (3) Amazon’s third-party 16 licensing information related to prior litigation. 17 First, for the settlement discussions, the parties have “asserted no compelling reason to 18 seal the information” nor “made a showing that some specific harm will result from its 19 publication.” Select Portfolio Servicing v. Valentino, 2013 WL 1800039, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20 29, 2013) (Judge Susan Illston). The settlement materials focus primarily on whether 21 discussions are subject to confidential treatment and are otherwise devoid of specific and 22 substantive settlement tactics, valuations, or offers. The parties have not identified any specific 23 material for which public disclosure would result in damage to their competitive standing. 24 Second, Amazon moved to seal descriptions of the structure and functionality of its 25 autocomplete system on the basis it constitute trade secret information and would harm 26 Amazon’s competitive standing. The unclean hands order, as explained, described the 27 autocomplete feature as it existed in 2011, but Amazon did not move to seal that information. 1 sealing orders have sealed information detailing Amazon’s autocomplete system, all the 2 information submitted in the unclean-hands briefing related to the system as it existed in 2011. 3 Amazon has not explained how disclosure of technical details from over a decade ago could 4 now cause it competitive harm. Nor has it adequately explained how broad details about the 5 autocomplete system’s structure would qualify as a trade secret, especially given that the 6 unclean hands order disclosed the information previously identified as a trade secret. 7 Furthermore, this order believes Amazon’s initial requests to seal virtually every general 8 description of its system overbroad and not narrowly tailored to the actual technical details that 9 could conceivably be sealed. This further counsels against sealing now, after the public filing 10 of the unclean hands order. 11 Third, this order will provide particularized analyses of third-party licensing information 12 below, but notes that the parties to the agreements have provided declarations in support of 13 sealing, and that no party herein has acted contrary to our local rules and hence lost its ability 14 to petition to seal its own information. 15 A. DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DISMISSAL AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS DUE TO PLAINTIFF’S UNCLEAN HANDS. 16 17 Amazon moved to seal its motion for dismissal and terminating sanctions due to 18 MasterObjects’ unclean hands (Dkt. No. 278). MasterObjects opposed sealing in part (Dkt. 19 No. 287). In light of the now public unclean hands order as discussed above, this order rules as 20 follows: 21 Dkt. Document to be Result Reasoning No. Sealed 22 278-4 Amazon’s Motion for DENIED. Materials sought to be sealed were 23 Dismissal publicly disclosed in the unclean hands order, and no additional 24 material qualifies for sealing, as discussed in the opening analysis for 25 Section 9, supra. 26 278-6 Declaration of I. Neel DENIED. See entry for Dkt No. 278-4. 27 Chatterjee 278-7 Exhibit A to Chatterjee DENIED. See entry for Dkt No. 278-4. 1 Decl., Settlement 2 Communication Memo 278-8 Exhibit B to Chatterjee DENIED. See entry for Dkt No. 278-4. 3 Decl., Email Communications 4 278-9 Exhibit 1, Transcript DENIED. See entry for Dkt No. 278-4. of Mark Smit 5 Deposition 6 278- Exhibit 5, Email DENIED. See entry for Dkt No. 278-4. 11 Communication 7 278- Exhibit 6, Email DENIED. See entry for Dkt No. 278-4. 12 Communication 8 278- Exhibit 16, Email DENIED. See entry for Dkt No. 278-4. 9 13 Communication 278- Exhibit 17, Settlement DENIED. See entry for Dkt No. 278-4. 10 14 Communication Memo 11 B. FURTHER SUPPORTING MATERIALS FOR DEFENDANT’S 12 MOTION FOR DISMISSAL AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS DUE TO PLAINTIFF’S UNCLEAN HANDS. 13 14 Amazon filed conditionally under seal its motion for dismissal and terminating sanctions 15 containing MasterObjects’ materials (Dkt. No. 279). MasterObjects’ provided a declaration to 16 support sealing some of the material (Dkt. No. 288). With respect to MasterObjects’ 17 materials, this order rules as follows: 18 Dkt. Document to be Result Reasoning No. Sealed 19 279-3 Amazon’s Motion for DENIED. MasterObjects’ did not seek to seal 20 Dismissal this information. With no justification for keeping this material confidential, 21 the material will be unsealed. 22 279-5 Exhibit 1, Transcript DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 279-3. 23 of Mark Smit Deposition 24 279-7 Exhibit 9, Transcript Sealing as to MasterObjects seeks to seal 25 of Mark Smit pages 5:13, information related to a licensing Deposition from June 22 (party agreement with a third-party. First, 26 25, 2021, in name only); MasterObjects’ request here is 27 MasterObjects, Inc. v. 71:2–3; narrowly tailored and it has not Facebook, Inc., No. C. 71:7; 72:1– otherwise misused its ability to and 73:1–5 the prejudice it would suffer upon 1 is public disclosure of this information. 2 GRANTED. Second, upon review, the redaction portions concern specific, sensitive 3 details about the agreement itself, whereupon disclosure may cause 4 competitive harm to both MasterObjects and the non-party 5 licensee. Third, this order finds the 6 public interest in this information relatively low compared the interests 7 of MasterObjects and the non-party in keeping this information confidential. 8 In sum, this order finds sealing warranting in these circumstances. 9 279-8 Exhibit 20, Transcript Sealing as to See entry for Dkt. No 279-7. This 10 of Mark Smit pages 73:13; order also notes that MasterObjects Deposition from 74:20 (party has sought to seal only the most 11 December 4, 2017, in name only) critical information, as it tailored its eBay, Inc. v. is sealing requests, in part, based on the 12 MasterObjects, Inc., GRANTED. breadth of the confidentiality No. IPR 2017-00740 provisions in the two licensing 13 (USPTO) agreements at issue in this document. 14 15 C. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DISMISSAL AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS DUE TO 16 PLAINTIFF’S UNCLEAN HANDS. 17 MasterObjects filed conditionally under seal its administrative motion to consider 18 whether portions of its opposition to Amazon’s motion for dismissal and terminating sanctions 19 should be sealed, which contained Amazon’s information (Dkt. No. 296). Amazon responded 20 in partial support and identified additional portions for sealing (Dkt. No. 307). MasterObjects 21 opposed Amazon’s sealing request (Dkt. No. 309). Amazon replied (Dkt. No. 313). This 22 order rules as follows: 23 Dkt. Document to be Result Reasoning 24 No. Sealed 296-4 MasterObjects’ DENIED. Materials sought to be sealed were 25 Opposition publicly disclosed in the unclean hands order, and no additional 26 material qualifies for sealing, as discussed in the opening analysis for 27 Section 9, supra. 296-6 Exhibit A, Email DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 296-4. 1 Communications 2 296-8 Exhibit B, Email DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 296-4. Communication 3 296- Exhibit C, Email DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 296-4. 10 Communications 4 296- Exhibit D, Email DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 296-4. 12 Communication 5 296- Exhibit E, Email DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 296-4. 6 14 Communication 296- Exhibit F, Email DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 296-4. 7 16 Communication 296- Exhibit G, Settlement DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 296-4. 8 18 Communication Memo 9 296- Exhibit H, Settlement DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 296-4. 20 Communication Memo 10 296- Exhibit I, Email DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 296-4. 22 Communications 11 296- Exhibit J, Email DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 296-4. 24 Communications 12 296- Exhibit K, Amazon DENIED This memo describes in further detail 13 26 Autocompletion WITHOUT aspects of the autocomplete system Architecture Memo PREJUDICE. publicly disclosed in the unclean 14 hands order. It provides a diagram of the system’s architecture (as of 2011) 15 and a section regarding future 16 directions that Amazon’s engineering team were considering for 17 autocomplete. As explained in the opening analysis for Section 9, supra, 18 Amazon has not provided any compelling justification for why this 19 stale information should now be 20 sealed. The diagram contains little more than a pictographic description 21 of the basics of how the system works. The future directions, now over a 22 decade old, are seemingly irrelevant now. However, in light of the detailed 23 content in this memo, within 24 FOURTEEN DAYS of the filing of this order Amazon may submit a revised 25 sealing request that justifies sealing of any information that may still be 26 confidential. 27 296- Exhibit N, Transcript DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 296-4. 28 of Mark Smit 296- Declaration of William DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 296-4. 1 30 Nelson 2 3 D. DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS DUE TO PLAINTIFF’S UNCLEAN 4 HANDS. 5 Amazon moved to seal portions of its reply to its motion for terminating sanctions (Dkt. 6 No. 305). MasterObjects opposed sealing (Dkt. No. 310). This order rules as follows: 7 Dkt. Document to be Result Reasoning No. Sealed 8 305-3 Amazon’s Reply DENIED. Materials sought to be sealed were 9 publicly disclosed in the unclean hands order, and no additional 10 material qualifies for sealing, as discussed in the opening analysis for 11 Section 9, supra. 12 13 E. DEFENDANT’S SURREPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS DUE TO PLAINTIFF’S UNCLEAN 14 HANDS. 15 Amazon filed conditionally under seal its surreply in support of its motion for 16 terminating sanctions (Dkt. No. 344). MasterObjects opposed sealing (Dkt. No. 347). This 17 order rules as follows: 18 Dkt. Document to be Result Reasoning No. Sealed 19 344-2 Amazon’s Surreply DENIED. Materials sought to be sealed were 20 publicly disclosed in the unclean hands order, and no additional 21 material qualifies for sealing, in the opening analysis for Section 9, supra. 22 344-3 Exhibit A, Amazon DENIED See entry for Dkt. No. 296-26. 23 Autocompletion WITHOUT Architecture Memo PREJUDICE. 24 344-4 Exhibit B, Search DENIED This technical, internal Amazon wiki 25 Completion Design WITHOUT entry describes the structure and 26 Wiki PREJUDICE. functionality of Amazon’s autocomplete system as of (it appears) 27 2009. This is one of the documents that MasterObjects’ counsel referred No. 344-3). Accordingly, the same 1 analysis applies. Much of the material 2 in this document was publicly disclosed in the unclean hands order, 3 which Amazon did not seek to seal, as discussed in the opening analysis for 4 Section 9, supra. Amazon has not adequately explained how the stale 5 details in this document from 2009 6 constitute trade secrets or how disclosure would harm its competitive 7 standing. However, in light of the detailed content in this document, 8 within FOURTEEN DAYS of the filing of this, order Amazon may submit a 9 revised sealing request that justifies 10 sealing of any information that may still be confidential. 11 344-5 Exhibit C, Email DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 344-2. Communication 12 344-6 Exhibit D, Email DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 344-2. Communications 13 344-7 Exhibit Q, Email DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 344-2. 14 Communication 344-8 Exhibit S, Email DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 344-2. 15 Communications 16 344-9 Exhibit V, Amazon DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 344-2. Product Search 17 Network Traffic Analysis by Mark Smit 18 19 F. DEFENDANT’S SURREPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS DUE TO DEFENDANT’S UNCLEAN 20 HANDS. 21 Amazon also filed conditionally under seal its surreply in support of its motion for 22 terminating sanctions, which contained MasterObjects’ materials (Dkt. No. 345). 23 MasterObjects does not seek to keep this information under seal (Dkt. No. 349). With no 24 justification for keeping this material confidential, the motion is DENIED as to Amazon’s 25 Surreply and Exhibits A, C, D–J, L–O, Q, and S–V. 26 27 10. | DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO THE SPECIAL MASTER’S DISCOVERY 1 ORDER. 2 Amazon filed conditionally under seal portions of its response containing MasterObjects’ 3 materials to the Special Master’s discovery order (Dkt. No. 336). MasterObjects does not seek 4 to keep this information under seal (Dkt. No. 336). With no justification for keeping this 5 material confidential, the motion is DENIED. 6 11. MOTIONS TO SEAL STEMMING FROM THE COURT’S REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REGARDING A PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR THE 7 2011 LITIGATION. 8 A. PLAINTIFF ’S RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S REQUEST FOR INFORMATION. ° MasterObjects’ filed conditionally under seal portions of its response containing Amazon’s materials to the Court’s request for information (Dkt. No. 356). Amazon does not seek to keep this information under seal (Dkt. No. 363). With no justification for keeping this E ‘2 material confidential, motion to seal is DENIED. = B. DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S REQUEST FOR 14 INFORMATION. 15 Amazon filed conditionally under seal portions of its response containing MasterObjects’ 16 materials to the Court’s request for information (Dkt. No. 357). MasterObjects Amazon does 3 17 not seek to keep this information under seal (Dkt. No. 360). With no justification for keeping 18 this material confidential, motion to seal is DENIED. 19 CONCLUSION 20 The administrative motions to seal are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The 21 parties shall refile all relevant documents in full compliance with this order by no later than 22 NOVEMBER 7, 2022. IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: September 5, 2022. Pee LIAM ALSUP 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28