Bold Limited v. Rocket Resume, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 BOLD LIMITED, et al., Case No. 22-cv-01045-BLF

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER REGARDING SEALING 9 v. MOTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH MOTION FOR SUMMARY 10 ROCKET RESUME, INC., et al., JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO PRECLUDE DAMAGES THEORY 11 Defendants. [Re: ECF No. 201, 202, 206, 209, 210, 217, 12 218] 13 Before the Court are the parties’ sealing motions in connection with Defendants Rocket 14 Resume, Inc., and Stephen Zimmerman’s motion for summary judgment and motion to preclude 15 damages theory. ECF Nos. 201, 202, 206, 209, 210, 217, and 218. The Court has considered the 16 motions, and its rulings are laid out below. 17 I. LEGAL STANDARD 18 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 19 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 20 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 21 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are 22 “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of 23 “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 24 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed 25 upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. 26 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local 27 Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a 1 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that 2 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive 3 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5 4 requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” 5 Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable 6 material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 7 Further, when a party seeks to seal a document because it has been designated as 8 confidential by another party, the filing party must file an Administrative Motion to Consider 9 Whether Another Party’s Material Should be Sealed. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f). In that case, the filing 10 party need not satisfy the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(1). Instead, the 11 party who designated the material as confidential must, within seven days of the motion’s filing, 12 file a statement and/or declaration that meets the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79- 13 5(f)(3). A designating party’s failure to file a statement or declaration may result in the unsealing 14 of the provisionally sealed document without further notice to the designating party. Id. Any 15 party can file a response to that declaration within four days. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(4). 16 II. DISCUSSION 17 Because the motions to seal pertain to a motion for summary judgment and motion to 18 preclude damages theory, the Court will apply the “compelling reasons” standard. See Kamakana, 19 447 F.3d at 1177. The Court will address each motion in turn. 20 A. Defendants’ Administrative Motions to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should be Sealed in Connection with Their Motion to Preclude 21 Damages Theory (ECF Nos. 201, 209) 22 Defendants filed an administrative motion to consider whether another party’s material 23 should be sealed in connection with their motion to preclude damages theory. ECF No. 201. 24 Defendants have identified portions of their motion to preclude damages theory and certain 25 exhibits in support of that motion as containing information designated by Plaintiff Bold Limited 26 as “highly confidential.” Id. at 2. Defendants later amended their motion to modify the redactions 27 to the motion to preclude damages theory. ECF No. 209. Bold filed a statement in support of 1 finances, internal competitive metrics, internal business strategies, and nonpublic corporate 2 structure.” ECF No. 215 ¶ 4. Bold also seeks to seal only narrow redactions to the documents. 3 Id. ¶ 3. No party has filed an opposition to Bold’s statement. 4 Compelling reasons exist to seal confidential business information, including non-public 5 information about a company’s business strategy, business transactions, corporate structure, and 6 finances. See Droplets, Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc., No. 12-CV-03733-JST, 2019 WL 9443777, at *3 7 (N.D. Cal. June 18, 2019) (finding compelling reasons to seal non-public information concerning 8 business transactions, corporate structure, and settlement agreements under the more stringent 9 compelling reasons standard); Unlockd Media, Inc. Liquidation Tr. v. Google LLC, No. 21-CV- 10 07250-HSG, 2022 WL 4624985, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2022) (finding compelling reasons to 11 seal non-public information related to a company’s business model); In re Google Location Hist. 12 Litig., No. 5:18-cv-05062-EJD, 514 F.Supp.3d 1147, 1162 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2021) (“Compelling 13 reasons may exist to seal ‘trade secrets, marketing strategies, product development plans, detailed 14 product-specific financial information, customer information, internal reports.’”); Fed. Trade 15 Comm’n v. Microsoft Corp., No. 23-CV-02880-JSC, 2023 WL 5186252, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 16 2023) (finding compelling reasons to seal “[n]on-public sensitive financial information”); In re 17 Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding sealable “business information that 18 might harm a litigant’s competitive standing”). 19 The Court finds compelling reasons to seal the information identified in the highlighted 20 portions proposed by Bold of Defendants’ motion to preclude damages theory and the exhibits 21 listed in the table below. These documents discuss non-public information about Bold’s corporate 22 structure and finances, which if released would cause Bold competitive harm. The Court further 23 finds that Bold’s requests to seal these documents are “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable 24 material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 25 The Court rules as follows:

26 ECF No. Document Portions to Seal Ruling 27 215-1 Defendants Rocket Highlighted GRANTED as containing Resume, Inc.’s and Portions confidential business Motion to Preclude would cause a party competitive 1 Damages Theory harm. 2 215-2 Ex. D to the Highlighted GRANTED as containing Declaration of Joseph Portions confidential business 3 A. Gorman in Support information, the release of which of Defendants Rocket would cause a party competitive 4 Resume, Inc.’s and harm. Stephen Zimmerman’s 5 Motion to Preclude 6 Damages Theory 215-3 Ex. E to the Highlighted GRANTED as containing 7 Declaration of Joseph Portions confidential business A. Gorman in Support information, the release of which 8 of Defendants Rocket would cause a party competitive Resume, Inc.’s and harm. 9 Stephen Zimmerman’s 10 Motion to Preclude Damages Theory 11 215-4 Ex. G to the Highlighted GRANTED as containing Declaration of Joseph Portions confidential business 12 A. Gorman in Support information, the release of which 13 of Defendants Rocket would cause a party competitive Resume, Inc.’s and harm. 14 Stephen Zimmerman’s Motion to Preclude 15 Damages Theory 215-5 Ex. H to the Highlighted GRANTED as containing 16 Declaration of Joseph Portions confidential business 17 A. Gorman in Support information, the release of which of Defendants Rocket would cause a party competitive 18 Resume, Inc.’s and harm. Stephen Zimmerman’s 19 Motion to Preclude Damages Theory 20 215-6 Ex. I to the Declaration Highlighted GRANTED as containing 21 of Joseph A. Gorman in Portions confidential business Support of Defendants information, the release of which 22 Rocket Resume, Inc.’s would cause a party competitive and Stephen harm. 23 Zimmerman’s Motion to Preclude Damages 24 Theory 25 215-7 Ex. J to the Declaration Highlighted GRANTED as containing of Joseph A. Gorman in Portions confidential business 26 Support of Defendants information, the release of which Rocket Resume, Inc.’s would cause a party competitive 27 and Stephen harm. to Preclude Damages 1 Theory 2 B. Defendants’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Connection with Their Motion to Preclude Damages Theory (ECF No. 202) 3 Defendants have filed an administrative motion to file under seal that seeks to seal 4 highlighted portions of their motion to preclude damages theory and certain exhibits in support of 5 that motion. ECF No. 202. Defendants argue that this information should be kept under seal 6 because “[t]hese documents contain commercially sensitive information concerning [Defendants’] 7 finances, customers and subscribers, and internal business operations and strategies, which could 8 cause [Defendants] significant competitive harm if made public.” Id. at 4. No party has filed an 9 objection to the motion. 10 As stated above, compelling reasons exist to seal confidential business information, 11 including non-public information about a company’s business strategy, business transactions, 12 corporate structure, and finances. See Droplets, 2019 WL 9443777, at *3; Unlockd Media, Inc. 13 Liquidation Tr., 2022 WL 4624985, at *2; In re Google Location Hist. Litig., 514 F.Supp.3d at 14 1162; Microsoft, 2023 WL 5186252, at *5; In re Elec. Arts, 298 F.App’x at 569. 15 The Court finds compelling reasons to seal the information identified in the highlighted 16 portions of Defendants’ motion to preclude damages theory and the exhibits listed in the table 17 below. These documents discuss non-public information about Defendants’ business operations 18 and finances, which if released would cause Defendants competitive harm. The Court further 19 finds that Defendants’ requests to seal these documents are “narrowly tailored to seal only the 20 sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 21 The Court rules as follows: 22

23 ECF No. Document Portions to Seal Ruling 202-3 Rocket’s Motion to Highlighted GRANTED as containing 24 Preclude Damages Portions confidential business Theory information, the release of which 25 would cause a party competitive 26 harm. 202-4 Ex. D to the Highlighted GRANTED as containing 27 Declaration of Joseph Portions confidential business Resume, Inc.’s and harm. 1 Stephen Zimmerman’s 2 Motion to Preclude Damages Theory 3 202-5 Ex. H to the Highlighted GRANTED as containing Declaration of Joseph Portions confidential business 4 A. Gorman in Support information, the release of which of Defendants Rocket would cause a party competitive 5 Resume, Inc.’s and harm. 6 Stephen Zimmerman’s Motion to Preclude 7 Damages Theory 202-6 Ex. I to the Declaration Highlighted GRANTED as containing 8 of Joseph A. Gorman in Portions confidential business Support of Defendants information, the release of which 9 Rocket Resume, Inc.’s would cause a party competitive 10 and Stephen harm. Zimmerman’s Motion 11 to Preclude Damages Theory 12 Because the motions at ECF Nos. 201, 202, and 209 and the corresponding statement at ECF No. 13 215 seek to seal overlapping documents, the Court ORDERS Defendants to consolidate the 14 redactions identified at ECF Nos. 202 and 215 that the Court has approved and file redacted 15 versions of their motion to preclude damages theory and Exhibits D, E, G, H, I, and J on the public 16 docket within 7 days of the date of this Order. 17 C. Defendants’ Administrative Motions to Consider Whether Another Party’s 18 Material Should Be Sealed in Connection with Their Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 206, 210) 19 Defendants filed an administrative motion to consider whether another party’s material 20 should be sealed in connection with their motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 206. 21 Defendants have identified portions of their motion for summary judgment and certain exhibits in 22 support of that motion as containing information designated by Bold as “highly confidential.” Id. 23 at 2. Defendants later amended their motion to modify the redactions to the motion for summary 24 judgment. ECF No. 210. Bold filed a statement that requests that highlighted portions of 25 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and Exhibit E as well as the entirety of Exhibits A and 26 D remain under seal because those documents include information “concerning Bold’s internal 27 business practices, finances, internal competitive metrics, internal business strategies, and 1 nonpublic corporate structure.” ECF No. 219 ¶ 4. Bold does not seek to seal the remainder of the 2 exhibits identified in Defendants’ motion. Id. ¶ 3. No party has filed an opposition to Bold’s 3 statement. 4 As stated above, compelling reasons exist to seal confidential business information, 5 including non-public information about a company’s business strategy, business transactions, 6 corporate structure, and finances. See Droplets, 2019 WL 9443777, at *3; Unlockd Media, Inc. 7 Liquidation Tr., 2022 WL 4624985, at *2; In re Google Location Hist. Litig., 514 F.Supp.3d at 8 1162; Microsoft, 2023 WL 5186252, at *5; In re Elec. Arts, 298 F.App’x at 569. 9 The Court finds compelling reasons to seal the information identified in the highlighted 10 portions proposed by Bold of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and Exhibit E. These 11 documents discuss non-public information about Bold’s corporate structure and finances, which if 12 released would cause Bold competitive harm. The Court further finds that Bold’s requests to seal 13 these documents are “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 14 However, Bold’s request to seal the entirety of Exhibits A and D (an expert report and a set of 15 interrogatory responses) is not narrowly tailored because there are not compelling reasons to seal 16 all of the information in these documents. 17 The Court rules as follows:

18 ECF No. Document Portions to Seal Ruling 19 219-1 Defendants Rocket Highlighted GRANTED as containing Resume, Inc.’s and Portions confidential business 20 Stephen Zimmerman’s information, the release of which Motion for Summary would cause a party competitive 21 Adjudication harm. 206-3 Ex. A to the Entire Document DENIED as not narrowly 22 Declaration of tailored. 23 Christina Myrold in support of Defendants’ 24 Motion for Summary Adjudication 25 206-4 Ex. D to the Entire Document DENIED as not narrowly Declaration of tailored. 26 Christina Myrold in 27 support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary 219-2 Ex. E to the Highlighted GRANTED as containing 1 Declaration of Portions confidential business 2 Christina Myrold in information, the release of which support of Defendants’ would cause a party competitive 3 Motion for Summary harm. Adjudication 4 206-6 Ex. F to the Declaration Entire Document DENIED because Bold of Christina Myrold in represents that the document 5 support of Defendants’ need not be sealed. 6 Motion for Summary Adjudication 7 206-7 Ex. G to the Entire Document DENIED because Bold Declaration of represents that the document 8 Christina Myrold in need not be sealed. support of Defendants’ 9 Motion for Summary 10 Adjudication 206-8 Ex. H to the Entire Document DENIED because Bold 11 Declaration of represents that the document Christina Myrold in need not be sealed. 12 support of Defendants’ 13 Motion for Summary Adjudication 14 206-8 Ex. I to the Declaration Entire Document DENIED because Bold of Christina Myrold in represents that the document 15 support of Defendants’ need not be sealed. Motion for Summary 16 Adjudication 17 The above denials are WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Bold filing a renewed statement in support of 18 sealing Exhibits A and D that includes narrow redactions. The Court ORDERS Defendants to file 19 redacted versions of their motion for summary judgment and Exhibit E and unredacted versions of 20 Exhibits F, G, H, and I on the public docket within 7 days of the date of this Order. 21 D. Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Connection with Its 22 Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Preclude Damages Theory (ECF No. 217) Plaintiff has filed an administrative motion to file under seal that seeks to seal highlighted 23 portions of its opposition to Defendants’ motion to preclude damages theory and certain exhibits 24 in support of that opposition. ECF No. 217. Bold argues that these documents contain 25 information “relating to Bold’s business model, corporate organization, business transactions, and 26 finances.” Id. at 2. No party has filed an objection to the motion. 27 1 including non-public information about a company’s business strategy, business transactions, 2 corporate structure, and finances. See Droplets, 2019 WL 9443777, at *3; Unlockd Media, Inc. 3 Liquidation Tr., 2022 WL 4624985, at *2; In re Google Location Hist. Litig., 514 F.Supp.3d at 4 1162; Microsoft, 2023 WL 5186252, at *5; In re Elec. Arts, 298 F.App’x at 569. 5 The Court finds compelling reasons to seal the information identified in the Bold’s 6 opposition and Exhibits L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, and T. These documents discuss non-public 7 information about Bold’s business operations and finances, which if released would cause Bold 8 competitive harm. The Court further finds that Bold’s requests to seal these documents are 9 “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). However, Bold’s 10 request to seal the entirety of Exhibit J is not narrowly tailored because there are not compelling 11 reasons to seal all of the information in this document. 12 The Court rules as follows:

13 ECF No. Document Portions to Seal Ruling 14 217-3 Bold’s Opposition to Highlighted GRANTED as containing Defendants’ Motion to Portions confidential business 15 Preclude Damages information, the release of which Theory would cause a party competitive 16 harm. 217-4 Victorson Decl. Ex. J Entire Document DENIED as not narrowly 17 tailored. 18 217-5 Victorson Decl. Ex. L Highlighted GRANTED as containing Portions confidential business 19 information, the release of which would cause a party competitive 20 harm. 21 217-6 Victorson Decl. Ex. M Highlighted GRANTED as containing Portions confidential business 22 information, the release of which would cause a party competitive 23 harm. 217-7 Victorson Decl. Ex. N Highlighted GRANTED as containing 24 Portions confidential business 25 information, the release of which would cause a party competitive 26 harm. 217-8 Victorson Decl. Ex. O Highlighted GRANTED as containing 27 Portions confidential business would cause a party competitive 1 harm. 2 217-9 Victorson Decl. Ex. P Highlighted GRANTED as containing Portions confidential business 3 information, the release of which would cause a party competitive 4 harm. 217-10 Victorson Decl. Ex. Q Highlighted GRANTED as containing 5 Portions confidential business 6 information, the release of which would cause a party competitive 7 harm. 217-11 Victorson Decl. Ex. R Highlighted GRANTED as containing 8 Portions confidential business information, the release of which 9 would cause a party competitive 10 harm. 217-12 Victorson Decl. Ex. S Highlighted GRANTED as containing 11 Portions confidential business information, the release of which 12 would cause a party competitive 13 harm. 217-13 Victorson Decl. Ex. T Highlighted GRANTED as containing 14 Portions confidential business information, the release of which 15 would cause a party competitive harm. 16 The above denial as to Exhibit J is WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Bold filing a renewed statement in 17 support of sealing that includes narrow redactions. 18 E. Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s 19 Material Should Be Sealed in Connection with Its Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Preclude Damages Theory (ECF No. 218) 20 Bold filed an administrative motion to consider whether another party’s material should be 21 sealed in connection with its opposition to Defendants’ motion to preclude damages theory. ECF 22 No. 218. Bold has identified portions of its opposition and certain exhibits in support of the 23 opposition as containing information designated by Defendants as “highly confidential.” Id. at 2. 24 Defendants filed a statement that requests that highlighted portions of the Exhibits M, P, Q, and R 25 and the entirety of Exhibit T remain under seal because: 26

These materials contain commercially sensitive, highly confidential, 27 nonpublic, and closely guarded information regarding: (1) Rocket’s operations and strategies; and (4) Rocket’s internal competitive 1 metrics and the internal strategies Rocket uses to evaluate its competitive position in the market. 2 3 ECF No. 229 ¶ 5. Defendants do not seek to seal Bold’s opposition. Id. ¶ 3. No party has filed an 4 opposition to Defendants’ statement. 5 As stated above, compelling reasons exist to seal confidential business information, 6 including non-public information about a company’s business strategy, business transactions, 7 corporate structure, and finances. See Droplets, 2019 WL 9443777, at *3; Unlockd Media, Inc. 8 Liquidation Tr., 2022 WL 4624985, at *2; In re Google Location Hist. Litig., 514 F.Supp.3d at 9 1162; Microsoft, 2023 WL 5186252, at *5; In re Elec. Arts, 298 F.App’x at 569. 10 The Court finds compelling reasons to seal the information identified in the highlighted 11 portions proposed by Defendants of Bold’s opposition and Exhibits M, P, Q, and R. These 12 documents discuss non-public information about Defendants’ business operations and finances, 13 which if released would cause Defendants competitive harm. The Court further finds that 14 Defendants’ requests to seal these documents are “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable 15 material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). However, Bold’s request to seal the entirety of Exhibit T is not 16 narrowly tailored because there are not compelling reasons to seal all of the information in this 17 document. 18 The Court rules as follows:

19 ECF No. Document Portions to Seal Ruling 20 218-2 Bold’s Opposition to Highlighted DENIED because Defendants Defendants’ Motion to Portions represent that the document need 21 Preclude Damages not be sealed. Theory 22 229-1 Victorson Decl. Ex. M Highlighted GRANTED as containing Portions confidential business 23 information, the release of which 24 would cause a party competitive harm. 25 229-2 Victorson Decl. Ex. P Highlighted GRANTED as containing Portions confidential business 26 information, the release of which would cause a party competitive 27 harm. Portions confidential business 1 information, the release of which 2 would cause a party competitive harm. 3 229-4 Victorson Decl. Ex. R Highlighted GRANTED as containing Portions confidential business 4 information, the release of which would cause a party competitive 5 harm. 6 218-7 Victorson Decl. Ex. T Entire Document DENIED as not narrowly tailored. 7 Because the motions at ECF Nos. 217 and 218 and the corresponding statement at ECF No. 229 8 seek to seal overlapping documents, the Court ORDERS Bold to consolidate the redactions 9 identified at ECF Nos. 217 and 229 that the Court has approved and file redacted versions of their 10 opposition and Exhibits L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, and S on the public docket within 7 days of the date 11 of this Order. The above denial as to Exhibit T is WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Defendants filing a 12 renewed statement in support of sealing that includes narrow redactions. 13 III. ORDER 14 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. Defendants’ Administrative Motions to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material 16 Should be Sealed in Connection with Their Motion to Preclude Damages Theory (ECF Nos. 201, 17 209) are GRANTED. 18 2. Defendants’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Connection with Their 19 Motion to Preclude Damages Theory (ECF No. 202) is GRANTED. 20 a. Defendants SHALL consolidate the redactions identified at ECF Nos. 202 and 21 215 that the Court has approved above and file redacted versions of their 22 motion to preclude damages theory and Exhibits D, E, G, H, I, and J on the 23 public docket within 7 days of the date of this Order. 24 3. Defendants’ Administrative Motions to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material 25 Should Be Sealed in Connection with Their Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 206, 210) 26 are GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, and DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART. 27 a. Defendants SHALL file redacted versions of their motion for summary 1 judgment and Exhibit E and unredacted versions of Exhibits F, G, H, and I on 2 the public docket within 7 days of the date of this Order. 3 b. Bold may file a renewed statement in support of sealing Exhibits A and D 4 within 7 days of the date of this Order. 5 4. Plaintiff's Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in Connection with Its 6 || Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Preclude Damages Theory (ECF No. 217) is GRANTED IN 7 || PART and DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART. 8 a. Bold may file a renewed motion to seal Exhibit J within 7 days of the date of 9 this Order. 10 5. Plaintiff's Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material 11 Should Be Sealed in Connection with Its Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Preclude Damages 12 || Theory (ECF No. 218) is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, and DENIED WITHOUT 5 13. || PREJUDICE IN PART. 14 a. Bold SHALL consolidate the redactions identified at ECF Nos. 217 and 229 3 15 that the Court has approved and file redacted versions of their opposition and 16 Exhibits L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, and S on the public docket within 7 days of the 3 17 date of this Order. 18 b. Defendants may file a renewed statement in support of sealing Exhibit T within 19 7 days of the date of this Order. 20 21 Dated: March 27, 2024

BETH LABSON FREEMAN 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28