Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 GOOGLE LLC, 11 Plaintiff, No. C 20-06754 WHA 12 v. 13 SONOS, INC., OMNIBUS ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL 14 Defendant. 15 16 This order addresses pending motions to seal filed in connection with the patent 17 showdown procedure, including Sonos’s claim construction brief (Dkt. No. 203), Sonos’s 18 patent showdown motion for summary judgment (Dkt. Nos. 209, 247–48, 273), Sonos’s 19 accompanying motion to strike (Dkt. Nos. 220, 253, 265), Google’s patent showdown motion 20 for summary judgment (Dkt. Nos. 210, 221, 252, 276–77), related submissions by both parties 21 (Dkt. Nos. 296, 313, 321–22, 329), and responses to the Court’s order to show cause (Dkt. 22 Nos. 346–48, 350). 23 1. THE LEGAL STANDARD. 24 There is a strong public policy in favor of openness in our court system and the public is 25 entitled to know to whom we are providing relief (or not). See Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 26 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–80 (9th Cir. 2006). Consequently, access to motions and their 27 attachments that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only 1 LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). But a good cause standard applies to the sealing 2 of documents that are unrelated or only tangentially related to the underlying claim. Id. at 3 1098–99. “For good cause to exist, the party seeking protection bears the burden of showing 4 specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.” Phillips ex rel. Ests. of 5 Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002). 6 In addition, sealing motions filed in this district must contain a specific statement that 7 explains: (1) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (2) the injury that 8 will result should sealing be denied; and (3) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not 9 sufficient. The material requested to be sealed must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the 10 sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(c). For example, “[t]he publication of materials that could 11 result in infringement upon trade secrets has long been considered a factor that would 12 overcome [the] strong presumption” in favor of access and provide compelling reasons for 13 sealing. Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011). Compelling reasons 14 may also warrant sealing for “sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s 15 competitive standing,” especially where the public has “minimal interest” in the information 16 because it “is not necessary to the public’s understanding of the case.” See Nixon v. Warner 17 Comms., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). 18 Finally, “[s]upporting declarations may not rely on vague boilerplate language or 19 nebulous assertions of potential harm but must explain with particularity why any document or 20 portion thereof remains sealable under the applicable legal standard.” Bronson v. Samsung 21 Elecs. Am., Inc., 2019 WL 7810811, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 28, 2019) (citing Civ. L.R. 79-5). 22 “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain 23 documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are 24 sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c). 25 2. SONOS’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF. 26 Sonos, with Google’s support, filed conditionally under seal an exhibit to its claim 27 construction brief containing Google’s responses to Sonos’s first set of interrogatories (Dkt. 1 redactions (Dkt. Nos. 213–14). The redactions, however, are directed toward the term 2 “videoID” and related information that was central to the merits in the Court’s order on 3 summary judgment and claim construction (see Dkt. No. 316 at 8–9). Moreover, Google has 4 merely offered generic, boilerplate explanations as to why public disclosure of this information 5 would result in competitive harm. The public interest in understanding the merits of this case 6 therefore outweighs Google’s asserted interested in confidentiality. The motion is DENIED. 7 3. SONOS’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. 8 Both parties have filed motions to seal in connection with Sonos’s motion for summary 9 judgment (Dkt. Nos. 209, 247–48, 273). Upon review, this order rules as follows: 10 Dkt. Document to be Result Reasoning 11 No. Sealed 12 209-2 Sonos’s Motion for DENIED. Google seeks to seal general, technical Summary information regarding its systems (Dkt. 13 Judgment Nos. 215–16). Google’s support for sealing is insufficient because it is 14 overbroad and nonspecific. Given the nature of the information at issue, Google 15 does not describe with particularity how 16 disclosure of this general information would cause it competitive harm. It 17 merely provides the generic assertion that “competitors could use these details 18 regarding the architecture and functionality of Google’s products to 19 gain a competitive advantage in the 20 marketplace with respect to their competing products” (Ma Decl. ¶ 5). 21 Google further references source code, but there is none in the document. 22 Google cites no authority indicating why this high-level information is sealable. 23 See Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., 2015 24 WL 5012679, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2015) (Judge William H. Orrick). This 25 information goes to the very heart of this litigation, and the particularly strong 26 public interest here outweighs Google’s 27 interest in keeping the material sealed. 209-3 Almeroth Decl. GRANTED IN The request is GRANTED as to the DENIED IN 25, 143–44, and 158–59, which contain 1 PART. source code. The request is otherwise 2 DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 209-2. 209-4 Exh. B to Smith DENIED. Google asks to seal redacted portions of 3 Decl. its response to Sonos’s interrogatories on the grounds it contains confidential 4 information regarding its systems. The response describes Google’s speaker 5 group system in generic terms. Google 6 does not adequately explain how disclosure of this high-level information 7 could allow a third-party to understand its system in enough detail that it would 8 cause Google competitive harm. 9 209-5 Exh. D to Smith GRANTED. Google seeks to seal detailed, Decl. confidential information regarding 10 Google’s systems, public disclosure of which may cause Google competitive 11 harm. 209-6 Exh. F to Smith GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 209-5. 12 Decl. 13 209-7 Exh. G to Smith GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 209-5. Decl. 14 209-8 Exh. H to Smith GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 209-5. However, Decl. the exhibit should be resubmitted with 15 Google’s proposed tailored redactions. See Dkt. No. 216-2. 16 209-9 Exh. I to Smith GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 209-5. 17 Decl. 209-10 Exh. L to Smith DENIED. Google asks to seal its responses to 18 Decl. Sonos’s requests for admission on the grounds they contain confidential 19 information regarding its systems. The 20 request is overbroad. Moreover, Google’s responses describe Google’s 21 speaker group system in generic terms. Google does not adequately explain how 22 disclosure of this high-level information could allow a third-party to understand 23 its system in enough detail that it would 24 cause Google competitive harm. 209-11 Exh. M to Smith GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 209-5. 25 Decl. 209-12 Exh. N to Smith DENIED. Google seeks seeks to seal this transcript 26 Decl. on the grounds it contains confidential information regarding its systems and 27 that it is subject to a protective order in a described the system in generic terms. 1 Google does not adequately explain how 2 disclosure of this high-level information could allow a third-party to understand 3 its system in enough detail that it would cause Google competitive harm. 4 Moreover, the request is clearly overbroad. That the information is 5 subject to a protective order alone is 6 insufficient to warrant sealing. 209-13 Exh. O to Smith DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 209-12. 7 Decl. 209-14 Exh. P to Smith GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 209-5. 8 Decl. 9 209-15 Exh. Q to Smith GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 209-5. Decl. 10 247-3; Google’s GRANTED IN Google asks to seal portions of its 248-3 Opposition PART AND opposition brief. Google also asks to 11 DENIED IN seal portions of its opposition on behalf PART. of Sonos, but Sonos clarified in a later 12 filing that it “does not seek to redact or 13 file under seal any portion of Google’s Opposition” (Dkt. No. 260 at ¶ 7). 14 Google’s request is GRANTED as to 15 Google’s discussion of its confidential presentation on pages 24–25, disclosure 16 of which may cause Google competitive 17 harm. 18 The request is otherwise DENIED. Google seeks to seal general, technical 19 information regarding its systems. Google’s support for sealing this 20 additional material is insufficient because 21 it is overbroad and nonspecific. Given the nature of the information at issue, 22 Google does not describe with particularity how disclosure of this 23 general information would cause it competitive harm. It merely provides the 24 generic assertion that “competitors could 25 use these details regarding the architecture and functionality of 26 Google’s products to gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace with 27 respect to their competing products” references source code, but there is none 1 in the document. Google cites no 2 authority indicating why this high-level information is sealable. See Finjan, Inc. 3 v. Sophos, Inc., 2015 WL 5012679, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2015) (Judge 4 William H. Orrick). This information goes to the very heart of this litigation, 5 and the particularly strong public interest 6 here outweighs Google’s interest in keeping the material sealed. 7 247-4 Schonfeld Decl. GRANTED IN The request is GRANTED as to the image PART AND of source code in paragraphs 36 and 40, 8 DENIED IN disclosure of which may cause Google 9 PART. competitive harm. The request is otherwise DENIED. See entry for Dkt. 10 No. 247-3. 11 247-5 Exh. 1 to Kaplan DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 247-3. Decl. 12 247-6; Exh. 4 to Kaplan GRANTED. Both parties seek to seal detailed, 13 248-5 Decl. confidential information regarding Google and Sonos systems, public 14 disclosure of which may cause Google and Sonos competitive harm. 15 247-7 Exh. 5 to Kaplan GRANTED. Google seeks to seal detailed, Decl. confidential information regarding 16 Google’s systems, public disclosure of 17 which may cause Google competitive harm. 18 247-8 Exh. 8 to Kaplan GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 247-7. Decl. 19 247-9 Exh. 9 to Kaplan GRANTED IN The request is GRANTED as to the image 20 Decl. PART AND of source code on page 323, disclosure of DENIED IN which may cause Google competitive 21 PART. harm. The request is otherwise DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 247-3. 22 247-10 Exh. 10 to Kaplan GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 247-7. 23 Decl. 24 248-4 Exh. 3 to Kaplan DENIED. Google filed a motion to seal this exhibit Decl. on behalf of Sonos, but Sonos clarified in 25 its supporting declaration that it does not seek to seal this material (Dkt. Nos. 260– 26 61). 27 248-6 Exh. 7 to Kaplan DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 248-4. Decl. 273-1 Exh. R DENIED. Google’s support for sealing this 1 additional material is insufficient because 2 it is overbroad and nonspecific. Given the nature of the information at issue, 3 Google does not describe with particularity how disclosure of this 4 general information would cause it competitive harm. It merely provides the 5 generic assertion that “competitors could 6 use these details regarding the architecture and functionality of 7 Google’s products to gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace with 8 respect to their competing products” (Ma Decl. ¶ 5). Google further references 9 source code, but there is none in the 10 document. Google cites no authority indicating why this high-level 11 information is sealable. See Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., 2015 WL 5012679, at *5 12 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2015) (Judge William H. Orrick). This information 13 goes to the very heart of this litigation, 14 and the particularly strong public interest here outweighs Google’s interest in 15 keeping the material sealed. 273-2 Exh. S DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 273-1. 16 273-4 Sonos’s Reply DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 273-1. 17 4. GOOGLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. 18 Both parties have filed motions to seal in connection with Google’s motion for summary 19 judgment (Dkt. Nos. 210, 221, 252, 276–77). Upon review, this order rules as follows: 20 21 Dkt. Document to be Result Reasoning No. Sealed 22 210-3 Exh. 1 DENIED Google asks to seal the entirety of its WITHOUT fifty-four page expert report (Hefazi 23 PREJUDICE. Decl.). This is overbroad, particularly as 24 swaths of the report go to the merits of Google’s motion and Google has merely 25 offered a boilerplate justification for sealing. The request is denied without 26 prejudice. Google may file a renewed submission with narrowly tailored 27 redactions, but should bear in mind that a specific, compelling reasons for sealing 1 is likely to be rejected. 2 210-4 Exh. 2 GRANTED. Google seeks to seal detailed, 3 confidential information regarding Google’s systems, public disclosure of 4 which may cause Google competitive harm (Hefazi Decl. ¶ 4). 5 210-5 Exh. 3 GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 210-4. 6 210-6 Exh. 4 GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 210-4. 210-7 Exh. 5 GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 210-4. 7 210-8 Exh. 6 GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 210-4. 8 210-9 Exh. 8 GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 210-4. 210-10 Exh. 10 GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 210-4. 9 210-11 Exh. 11 DENIED. Google asks to seal a declaration from one of its engineers. This declaration 10 was discussed in the Court’s order on summary judgment, so there is a strong 11 interest in public disclosure. Moreover, 12 the information revealed in the declaration relates to generic technical 13 information from technology that is more than a decade old. Further, the 14 declaration merely includes locations of source code and not source code itself. 15 In light of the foregoing, Google’s 16 boilerplate justification for sealing is not sufficient to warrant sealing. The request 17 is denied. 210-12 Exh. 13 (Schonfeld GRANTED IN The request is GRANTED as to the image 18 Decl.) PART AND of source code in paragraphs 28 and 29, 19 DENIED IN disclosure of which may cause Google PART. competitive harm. The request is 20 otherwise DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 210-15. 21 22 210-13 Exh. 19 GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 210-4. 210-14 Exh. 20 GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 210-4. 23 210-15 Google’s Motion GRANTED IN First, Google asks to seal a quote from a for Summary PART AND Sonos engineer on the first page of its 24 Judgment DENIED IN motion. Google does not offer any PART. compelling justification for this request. 25 The request is denied. 26 Second, Google generally seeks to seal 27 technical information regarding its systems (Hefazi Decl). The request is the “Cloud Queue API” on pages 14:10– 1 15:4, public disclosure of which could 2 cause Google competitive harm. 3 The request is otherwise DENIED as to the remainder of the brief. Google’s 4 support for sealing is insufficient because it is overbroad and nonspecific. Given 5 the nature of the information at issue, 6 Google does not describe with particularity how disclosure of this 7 general information would cause it competitive harm. It merely provides the 8 generic assertion that “competitors could use these details regarding the 9 architecture and functionality of 10 Google’s products to gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace with 11 respect to their competing products” (Hefazi Decl. ¶ 4). Google further 12 references source code, but there is none in the document other than that described 13 above. Google cites no authority 14 indicating why this high-level information is sealable. See Finjan, Inc. 15 v. Sophos, Inc., 2015 WL 5012679, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2015) (Judge 16 William H. Orrick). 17 Were the Court to seal this information, 18 the motion would be virtually incomprehensible to the public. 19 Moreover, much of the information was central to the Court’s order on summary 20 judgment (Dkt. No. 316). In short, this 21 information goes to the very heart of this litigation, and the particularly strong 22 public interest here outweighs Google’s interest in keeping the material sealed. 23 221-3 Google’s Corrected GRANTED IN See entry for Dkt. No. 210-15. Motion PART AND 24 DENIED IN 25 PART. 252-2 Sonos’s Opposition DENIED. Google seeks to seal descriptions of 26 technical information regarding its systems (Ma Decl.). Google’s support 27 for sealing is insufficient because it is nature of the information at issue, Google 1 does not describe with particularity how 2 disclosure of this general information would cause it competitive harm. It 3 merely provides the generic assertion that “competitors could use these details 4 regarding the architecture and functionality of Google’s products to 5 gain a competitive advantage in the 6 marketplace with respect to their competing products” (Ma Decl. ¶ 5). 7 Google further references source code, but there is none in the document. 8 Google cites no authority indicating why this high-level information is sealable, 9 particularly as much of the information 10 relates to technology that is more than a decade old. See Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, 11 Inc., 2015 WL 5012679, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2015) (Judge William H. 12 Orrick). 13 Were the Court to seal this information, 14 the motion would be virtually incomprehensible to the public. 15 Moreover, much of the information was central to the Court’s order on summary 16 judgment (Dkt. No. 316). In short, this information goes to the very heart of this 17 litigation, and the particularly strong 18 public interest here outweighs Google’s interest in keeping the material sealed. 19 252-3 Exh. 1 to Boyea DENIED Google asks to seal significant swaths of Decl. (Schmidt WITHOUT Sonos’s expert report (Ma Decl.). The 20 Decl.) PREJUDICE. request is overbroad, particularly as 21 much of the report go to the merits of Google’s motion and Google has merely 22 offered a boilerplate justification for sealing. The request is denied without 23 prejudice. Google may file a renewed submission with narrowly tailored 24 redactions, but should bear in mind that a 25 renewed request that fails to offer specific, compelling reasons for sealing 26 is likely to be rejected. 27 252-4 Exh. 2 to Boyea GRANTED. Google seeks to seal detailed, Google’s systems, public disclosure of 1 which may cause Google competitive 2 harm (Ma Decl. ¶ 5). 252-5 Exh. 3 to Boyea GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 252-4. 3 Decl. 252-6 Exh. 4 to Boyea GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 252-4. 4 Decl. 5 252-7 Exh. 7 to Boyea GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 252-4. Decl. 6 252-8 Exh. 9 to Boyea DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 252-2. Decl. 7 252-9 Exh. 10 to Boyea GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 252-4. Decl. 8 252-10 Exh. 11 to Boyea DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 252-2. 9 Decl. 252-11 Exh. 12 to Boyea DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 252-2. 10 Decl. 252-12 Exh. 13 to Boyea DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 252-2. 11 Decl. 12 252-13 Exh. 14 to Boyea DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 252-2. Decl. 13 252-14 Exh. 15 to Boyea DENIED. Sonos filed a motion to seal this exhibit Decl. on behalf of Google, but Google clarified 14 in its supporting declaration that it does not seek to seal this material (Dkt. No. 15 262). 16 252-15 Exh. 16 to Boyea DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 252-2. Decl. 17 276-3 Google’s Reply DENIED. Google’s justifications for sealing portions of its reply do not warrant 18 sealing for the same reasons described above with respect to its motion and 19 Sonos’s opposition. See entry for Dkt. 20 No. 252-2. 276-4; Exh. 1 to Hefazi DENIED. Sonos and Google both seek to redact 21 277-3 Decl. portions of Google’s expert declaration. The redactions sought to be sealed 22 describe Sonos and Google’s systems in 23 generic terms. Neither Sonos nor Google adequately explain how disclosure of this 24 high-level information could allow a third-party to understand its system in 25 enough detail that it would cause either party competitive harm. The information 26 is also central to the merits of Google’s 27 motion. The public’s interest in disclosure therefore outweighs the 276-5 Exh. 2 to Hefazi GRANTED. Google seeks to seal detailed, 1 Decl. confidential information regarding 2 Google’s systems, public disclosure of which may cause Google competitive 3 harm (Hefazi Decl.). 276-6 Exh. 3 to Hefazi DENIED Google asks to seal a transcript 4 Decl. WITHOUT describing its system in generic terms. 5 PREJUDICE. Google’s boilerplate justification is not sufficient to warrant sealing. Google 6 may file a renewed submission with narrowly tailored redactions, but should 7 bear in mind that a renewed request that fails to offer specific, compelling reasons 8 for sealing is likely to be rejected. 9 276-7 Exh. 4 to Hefazi DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 276-4. Decl. 10 276-8 Exh. 7 to Hefazi GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 276-5. 11 Decl. 277-4 Exh. 6 to Hefazi GRANTED. Sonos seeks to seal detailed, confidential 12 Decl. information regarding Google’s systems, public disclosure of which may cause 13 Google competitive harm (Richter Decl.). 14 277-5 Exh. 8 to Hefazi DENIED. Sonos does not seek to seal this 15 Decl. information (Richter Decl.). 16 5. SONOS’S MOTION TO STRIKE. 17 Both parties have filed motions to seal in connection with Sonos’s April 2022 motion to 18 strike (Dkt. Nos. 220, 253, 265). Upon review, this order rules as follows: 19 Dkt. Document to be Result Reasoning 20 No. Sealed 220-2 Sonos’s Motion to GRANTED IN The motion is GRANTED as to the 21 Strike PART. reference to source code and its file 22 location on page 12, public disclosure of which may cause Google competitive 23 harm. 24 The motion is otherwise DENIED. The information Google seeks to seal is 25 generic. Google fails to adequately 26 explain how disclosure of this high-level information could allow a third-party to 27 understand its system in enough detail merits of the Court’s order on the motion 1 to strike (Dkt. No. 315). Google cites no 2 authority indicating why this high-level information is sealable, particularly as 3 much of the information relates to technology that is more than a decade 4 old. See Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., 2015 WL 5012679, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5 24, 2015) (Judge William H. Orrick). 6 The public’s interest in disclosure therefore outweighs Google’s interest in 7 sealing. 8 220-3 Exh. A to Caridis GRANTED. Google asks to seal redacted portions of Decl. its invalidity claim chart, public 9 disclosure of which may cause Google 10 competitive harm (Dkt. No. 235–36). 253-2 Google’s GRANTED IN The motion is GRANTED as to the 11 Opposition PART. screenshots of Google’s contentions on pages 5 and 16 and the discussion of 12 Google’s source code and associated file locations on pages 19:6–20:2, public 13 disclosure of which may cause Google 14 harm. 15 The motion is otherwise DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 220-2. 16 253-3 Exh. 2 GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 220-3. 17 253-4 Exh. 6 DENIED Google asks to seal “portions highlighted WITHOUT in green” of a 281-page document, the 18 PREJUDICE. vast majority of which is evidently not highlighted. Google may file a renewed 19 submission that identifies the exact locations of its proposed redactions. 20 253-5 Exh. 9 DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 220-2. 21 253-6 Hefazi Decl. in GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 220-3. Support of 22 Opposition 23 265-2 Sonos’s Reply GRANTED IN The motion is GRANTED as to the PART. discussion of Google’s source code and 24 associated file locations on page 11, public disclosure of which may cause 25 Google harm. 26 The motion is otherwise DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 220-2. 27 6. RELATED SUBMISSIONS. 1 Google has filed motions to seal in connection with its notice of deposition testimony 2 (Dkt. No. 296), its summary judgment presentation slides (Dkt. Nos. 321–22), and its motion 3 to bifurcate (Dkt. No. 239). Sonos has filed a motion to seal in connection with its own 4 summary judgment presentation slides (Dkt. No. 313). Upon review, this order rules as 5 follows: 6 7 Dkt. Document to be Result Reasoning No. Sealed 8 296-2 Dep. Transcript GRANTED. Sonos asks to seal portions of a 9 deposition of one its employees, public disclosure of which may cause Sonos 10 harm (Dkt. Nos. 305–06). Moreover, the information sought to be sealed is only 11 tangentially related to the merits. 12 313-2 Sonos Presentation GRANTED. Google asks to seal portions of the 13 Slides presentation slides that Sonos used in its oral argument, disclosure of which may 14 cause Google competitive harm (Dkt. No. 318). 15 321-3; Google GRANTED. Both parties ask to seal portions of 16 322-2 Presentation Slides presentation slides that Google used in its oral argument, disclosure of which may 17 cause competitive harm to both parties (Dkt. Nos. 321, 331). 18 329-2 Motion to DENIED. Google filed a motion to seal portions of Bifurcate its brief and an exhibit on behalf of 19 Sonos, but Sonos later filed a submission 20 clarifying that it does not seek to seal that information (Dkt. No. 337). 21 329-3 Exh. 1 DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 329-2. 22 // 23 // 24 7. RESPONSES TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. 25 Both parties filed motions to seal in connection with their responses to the Court’s order 26 to show cause (Dkt. Nos. 346–47, 348, 350). Upon review, this order rules as follows: 27 Dkt. Document to be Result Reasoning 1 No. Sealed 2 346-2 Exh. 2 to Caridis DENIED. Sonos asks to seal an expert report on Decl. behalf of non-party Bose. Bose, 3 however, did not file a supporting declaration as required by Local Rule 79- 4 5(f). The request is denied. 5 346-3 Exh. 3 to Caridis DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 346-2. 6 Decl. 347-3; Exh. 6 (Part 1) DENIED. Google asks to seal general, technical 7 350-4 information regarding its systems (Kaplan Decl.). Google fails to 8 adequately explain how disclosure of this high-level information could allow a 9 third-party to understand its system in 10 enough detail that it would cause it competitive harm. The information is 11 also central to the merits of this case. Google cites no authority indicating why 12 this high-level information is sealable, 13 particularly as much of the information relates to technology that is more than a 14 decade old. See Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., 2015 WL 5012679, at *5 (N.D. Cal. 15 Aug. 24, 2015) (Judge William H. Orrick). The public’s interest in 16 disclosure therefore outweighs Google’s 17 interest in sealing. 18 347-4; Exh. 6 (Part 2) GRANTED. Google asks to seal information related 350-5 to third-party license agreements, public 19 disclosure of which may cause Google harm (Kaplan Decl.). 20 21 348-3 Exh. 4 to Caridis GRANTED. Sonos asks to seal confidential 22 Decl. information regarding its systems, disclosure of which may cause Sonos 23 harm (Richter Decl.). 24 350-2 Exh. 1 to Kaplan DENIED. Sonos seeks to seal general, technical Decl. information regarding its systems (Dkt. 25 Nos. 356–37). Sonos’s support for sealing is insufficient because it is 26 overbroad and nonspecific. Given the nature of the information at issue, Sonos 27 does not describe with particularity how would cause it competitive harm. It 1 merely provides the generic assertion that 2 “public disclosure of such information may lead to competitive harm as Sonos’s 3 competitors could use these details regarding the architecture and 4 functionality of these products to gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace 5 with respect to their competing products” 6 (Richter Decl. ¶ 7). The passages merely offer high-level descriptions of 7 confidential information and/or references to variable names. Sonos cites 8 no authority indicating why this high- level information is sealable. See Finjan, 9 Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., 2015 WL 5012679, 10 at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2015) (Judge William H. Orrick). This information 11 goes to the heart of this litigation, and the particularly strong public interest here 12 outweighs Sonos’s interest in keeping the material sealed. 13 350-3 Exh. 3 to Kaplan DENIED Sonos asks to seal the entirety of a 14 Decl. WITHOUT deposition transcript on the basis that it is PREJUDICE. subject to the Court’s protective order 15 (Richter Decl. ¶ 8). That is not sufficient, on its own, to warrant sealing. 16 See Civ. L.R. 79-5(c). 17 Sonos may file a renewed submission 18 with narrowly tailored redactions, but should bear in mind that a renewed 19 request that fails to offer specific, compelling reasons for sealing is likely 20 to be rejected. 21 350-4 Exh. 6 to (Part 1) GRANTED IN Sonos asks to seal portions of its expert Kaplan Decl. PART AND report (Dkt. No. 356). The request is 22 DENIED IN DENIED as to paragraphs 192, 222, 223, PART. and 231, which convey high-level, 23 generic information. Sonos’s boilerplate justification for sealing this information 24 does not suffice. The motion is 25 otherwise GRANTED as to Sonos’s remaining proposed redactions, public 26 disclosure of which may cause Sonos harm (ibid.). 27 I 350-5 Exh. 6 (Part 2) to DENIED. Sonos filed a submission indicating that Kaplan Decl. it does not seek to seal information in 2 this document (Dkt. No. 356). 350-6 | Exh. 9 to Kaplan See entry for Dkt. No. 350-5. 3 Decl. 350-7 Exh. 11 to Kaplan DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 350-5. 4 Decl. 5 350-8 Exh. 12 to Kaplan GRANTED. Sonos asks to seal specific technical Decl. information about its system, public 6 disclosure of which may cause Sonos harm (Richter Decl.). 7 350-9 Google’s Brief DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 350-2. 8 Showing Cause 9 10 CONCLUSION The parties should please note that, in the future, at trial or otherwise, the sealing calculus D may change with respect to any of the foregoing documents. With respect to motions to seal B that this order denied without prejudice, revised requests may be submitted that justify sealing 4 any information that may still be confidential within FOURTEEN DAyYs. All other documents S 5 shall be refiled in full compliance with this order no later than MAY 30, 2023, at NOON. 16 & IT IS SO ORDERED. = 17 Z 18 19 Dated: February 22, 2023. 21 LLIAM ALSUP 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28