Broadcom Corporation v. Netflix, Inc.

Opinion

1 4 5 BROADCOM CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 20-cv-04677-JD 6 Plaintiffs, , y. THIRD ORDER RE SEALING

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 Exhibits G and H to the Motion are ordered withdrawn, and no further action is required. 25 Dated: January 31, 2024 26 27 28 JAMES#/ONATO Unitedfftates District Judge