Broadcom Corporation v. Netflix, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 BROADCOM CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 20-cv-04677-JD 6 Plaintiffs, , y. THIRD ORDER RE SEALING

8 NETFLIX INC, 9 Defendant. 10 This order resolves a set of sealing motions related to Broadcom’s Motion to Strike 11 Portions of the Supplemental Opening Expert Report of Samrat Bhattacharjee, Dkt. No. 381, 12 || which was terminated without prejudice pursuant to Dkt. Nos. 425 & 437. See Dkt. Nos. 379, 5 13 || 391, 392, 393, & 394. Netflix requested sealing because the report references materials that were 14 || designated confidential by non-parties VMware, F5 Networks, Microsoft, and Oracle. 3 15 VMware and Oracle filed statements in support of sealing pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79- a 16 || which presented good cause for sealing portions of the report that reference their 3 17 || confidential source code. See Dkt. Nos. 400 & 398. F5 Networks and Microsoft did not file 18 || responses, which ordinarily would mean the “‘default posture of public access prevails’” for their 19 || confidential materials. In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litig., 556 F. Supp. 3d 1106, 1108 (N.D. 20 || Cal. 2021) (quoting Kamakana y. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006)). 21 Even so, in light of the fact that the Court did not rule on the substantive motion and the relevant 22 || patent is no longer at issue, Broadcom may withdraw the sealed material. See Civ. L.R. 79- 23 5(g)(2). Exhibits G and H to the Motion are ordered withdrawn, and no further action is required. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || Dated: January 31, 2024 26 27 28 JAMES#/ONATO Unitedfftates District Judge