Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc.

Opinion

EXELTIS USA INC., Case No. 17-cv-04810-HSG

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO v. SEAL

FIRST DATABANK, INC., Re: Dkt. Nos. 167, 179, Defendant.

Pending before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal portions of documents in connection with motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions. The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motions for the reasons described below. Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. The party seeking to file under seal must submit “a request that establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . . The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material . . . .” Civil L.R. 79- 5(b). Courts have found that “confidential business information” in the form of “license agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies” satisfies the “compelling reasons” standard. See In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17-cv-0108-GPC- MDD, 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) (observing that sealing such information “prevent[ed] competitors from gaining insight into the parties’ business model and strategy”); Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc., No. 13-cv-03345-BLF (JSC), 2015 WL 3988132, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015). Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80 (quotations omitted). This requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). Because the parties seek to seal portions and documents which pertain to summary judgment motions, the Court applies the compelling reasons standard to these documents. The motions. As indicated in the table below, the only proffered justification for sealing many of the documents is that the information was designated as “confidential” or “confidential – attorneys’ eyes only” by either Plaintiff or Defendant pursuant to the parties’ protective order. But a designation of confidentiality is not sufficient to establish that a document is sealable. See Civ. L. R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). “Confidential” is merely the parties’ initial designation of confidentiality to establish coverage under the stipulated protective order. See Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., No. 12-cv-05501-SI, 2015 WL 5117083, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2015) (“But good cause ‘cannot be established simply by showing that the document is subject to a protective order or by stating in general terms that the material is considered to be confidential’”) (quoting Bain v. AstraZeneca LP, No. 09-cv-4147, 2011 WL 482767, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2011)). Thus, many of the parties’ motions do not comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A). In addition, in many instances the designating party for the materials did not comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1), because they did not file a declaration within four days of the motion. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). The Court finds that sealing is not warranted as to those documents. The parties also appear to have omitted some exhibits, either as public or under seal versions, so the Court could not make a determination about whether sealing is warranted in those circumstances. Nevertheless, the Court finds that as to the remaining documents, the parties have narrowly tailored their requested redactions to confidential and proprietary business, sales, or licensing information, including the identities of the customers who subscribe to Defendant’s database and Defendant’s financial performance and company strategy. The public release of these documents could give non-party competitors an unfair advantage in the development or marketing of rival products. See In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (ordering sealing where documents could be used “‘as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing’”) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). Thus, the Court finds that the parties have in those circumstances established either compelling reasons or good cause to grant the motions to file under seal. See, e.g., Linex Techs., Inc. v. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 6115623 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012). Docket No. Document Portion(s) Sought to be Ruling Public /(Sealed) Sealed Dkt. No. 167 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART Dkt. No. 168/ Defendant’s Motion for Excerpts DENIED (167-5) Summary Judgment (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Dkt. No. 170/ Motion to Exclude the Excerpts DENIED (167-9) Purported Expert Report (No supporting and Testimony of Norman declaration filed. See Smith Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Dkt. No. 169/ Motion to Exclude the Excerpts DENIED (167-7) Purported Testimony of (No supporting Kevin Gorospe declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Dkt. No. 171-8/ Exhibit H to the Entire Document DENIED (167-12) Declaration of Ravi V. (No supporting Sitwala in Support of declaration filed. See Defendant’s Motions for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Summary Judgment and to Strike Expert Testimony Dkt. No. 171-9/ Exhibit I to the Entire Document DENIED (167-13) Declaration of Ravi V. (No supporting Sitwala in Support of declaration filed. See Defendant’s Motions for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Summary Judgment and to Strike Expert Testimony Dkt. No. 171-11/ Exhibit K to the Entire Document DENIED (167-14) Declaration of Ravi V. (No supporting Sitwala in Support of declaration filed. See Defendant’s Motions for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Summary Judgment and to Strike Expert Testimony Dkt. No. 171-12/ Exhibit L to the Entire Document DENIED (167-15) Declaration of Ravi V. (No supporting Sitwala in Support of declaration filed. See Defendant’s Motions for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Summary Judgment and to Strike Expert Dkt. No. 171-13/ Exhibit M to the Entire Document DENIED (167-16) Declaration of Ravi V. (No supporting Sitwala in Support of declaration filed. See Defendant’s Motions for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Summary Judgment and to Strike Expert Testimony Dkt. No. 171-14/ Exhibit N to the Entire Document DENIED (167-17) Declaration of Ravi V. (No supporting Sitwala in Support of declaration filed. See Defendant’s Motions for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Summary Judgment and to Strike Expert Testimony Dkt. No. 171-15/ Exhibit O to the Entire Document DENIED (167-18) Declaration of Ravi V. (No supporting Sitwala in Support of declaration filed. See Defendant’s Motions for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Summary Judgment and to Strike Expert Testimony Dkt. No. 171-16/ Exhibit P to the Entire Document DENIED (167-19) Declaration of Ravi V. (No supporting Sitwala in Support of declaration filed. See Defendant’s Motions for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Summary Judgment and to Strike Expert Testimony Dkt. No. 171-17/ Exhibit Q to the Entire Document DENIED (167-20) Declaration of Ravi V. (No supporting Sitwala in Support of declaration filed. See Defendant’s Motions for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Summary Judgment and to Strike Expert Testimony Dkt. No. 171-18/ Exhibit R to the Entire Document DENIED (167-21) Declaration of Ravi V. (No supporting Sitwala in Support of declaration filed. See Defendant’s Motions for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Summary Judgment and to Strike Expert Testimony Dkt. No. 171-19/ Exhibit S to the Entire Document DENIED (167-22) Declaration of Ravi V. (No supporting Sitwala in Support of declaration filed. See Defendant’s Motions for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Summary Judgment and Testimony Dkt. No. 171-20/ Exhibit T to the Entire Document DENIED (167-23) Declaration of Ravi V. (No supporting Sitwala in Support of declaration filed. See Defendant’s Motions for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Summary Judgment and to Strike Expert Testimony Dkt. No. 171-21/ Exhibit U to the Entire Document DENIED (167-24) Declaration of Ravi V. (No supporting Sitwala in Support of declaration filed. See Defendant’s Motions for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Summary Judgment and to Strike Expert Testimony Dkt. No. 171-22/ Exhibit V to the Entire Document DENIED (167-25) Declaration of Ravi V. (No supporting Sitwala in Support of declaration filed. See Defendant’s Motions for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Summary Judgment and to Strike Expert Testimony Dkt. No. 171-23/ Exhibit W to the Entire Document DENIED (167-26) Declaration of Ravi V. (No supporting Sitwala in Support of declaration filed. See Defendant’s Motions for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Summary Judgment and to Strike Expert Testimony Dkt. No. 171-26/ Exhibit Z to the Entire Document DENIED (167-27) Declaration of Ravi V. (No supporting Sitwala in Support of declaration filed. See Defendant’s Motions for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Summary Judgment and to Strike Expert Testimony Dkt. No. 171-29/ Exhibit CC to the Entire Document DENIED (167-28) Declaration of Ravi V. (No supporting Sitwala in Support of declaration filed. See Defendant’s Motions for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Summary Judgment and to Strike Expert Testimony Dkt. No. 171-39/ Exhibit MM to the Entire Document DENIED (167-29) Declaration of Ravi V. (No supporting Sitwala in Support of declaration filed. See Defendant’s Motions for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) to Strike Expert Testimony Dkt. No. 171-41/ Exhibit OO to the Entire Document DENIED (167-29) Declaration of Ravi V. (No supporting Sitwala in Support of declaration filed. See Defendant’s Motions for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Summary Judgment and to Strike Expert Testimony Dkt. No. 171-43/ Exhibit QQ to the Excerpts GRANTED (167-30) Declaration of Ravi V. (Contains proprietary Sitwala in Support of business information Defendant’s Motions for about Defendant’s Summary Judgment and subscribers. See Dkt. to Strike Expert No. 167-2.) Testimony Dkt. No. 171-44/ Exhibit RR to the Entire Document GRANTED IN (167-31) Declaration of Ravi V. PART and DENIED Sitwala in Support of IN PART Defendant’s Motions for (Pages 14 and 15 Summary Judgment and contain proprietary to Strike Expert business information Testimony about Defendant’s subscribers. However, no supporting declaration filed as to the rest of the document. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Dkt. No. 179 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART Dkt. No. 180/ Page 4:13–17 GRANTED (179-2) Page 5:2–21 (Contains proprietary Page 6:3–6, 12–25 business information Page 7:1–12, 17–28 about Defendant’s Page 8:1–6 subscribers. See Dkt. Page 12:11–13 Nos. 184, 185.) Page 15:5–17, 20–23 Page 16:1–8, 1–28 Page 17:1, 4–7, 11–16 Page 20:2 Page 22:3–28 Page 23:1–9 Page 24:1–4, 14–28 Page 25:1–7 Page 26:1–26 Page 27:1–4 Page 33:8–9, 28 Page 34:1–23 (179-3) Exhibit 2 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED M. Mundel in Support of IN PART Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains Judgment proprietary business information identifying Defendant’s customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) (179-4) Exhibit 3 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED M. Mundel in Support of IN PART Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains Judgment proprietary business information identifying Defendant’s customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) (179-5) Exhibit 8 to the Entire Document GRANTED Declaration of Benjamin (Contains proprietary M. Mundel in Support of business information Plaintiff’s Opposition to about Plaintiff’s the Motion for Summary contracts with third Judgment parties. See Dkt. No. 179-1.) (179-6) Exhibit 9 to the Entire Document GRANTED Declaration of Benjamin (Contains proprietary M. Mundel in Support of business information Plaintiff’s Opposition to about Plaintiff’s the Motion for Summary contracts with third Judgment parties. See Dkt. No. 179-1.) (179-7) Exhibit 10 to the Entire Document GRANTED Declaration of Benjamin (Contains proprietary M. Mundel in Support of business information Plaintiff’s Opposition to about Plaintiff’s the Motion for Summary contracts with third Judgment parties. See Dkt. No. 179-1.) (179-8) Exhibit 11 to the Entire Document GRANTED Declaration of Benjamin (Contains proprietary Plaintiff’s Opposition to about Plaintiff’s the Motion for Summary contracts with third Judgment parties. See Dkt. No. 179-1.) N/A Exhibit 12 to the Entire Document DENIED Declaration of Benjamin (No public or sealed M. Mundel in Support of version of the Plaintiff’s Opposition to document for review.) the Motion for Summary Judgment (179-9) Exhibit 13 to the Entire Document GRANTED Declaration of Benjamin (Contains proprietary M. Mundel in Support of business information Plaintiff’s Opposition to about Plaintiff’s the Motion for Summary contracts with third Judgment parties. See Dkt. No. 179-1.) (179-10) Exhibit 16 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED M. Mundel in Support of IN PART Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains Judgment proprietary business information identifying Defendant’s customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) (179-11) Exhibit 17 to the Entire Document GRANTED Declaration of Benjamin (Contains proprietary M. Mundel in Support of business information Plaintiff’s Opposition to about Defendant’s the Motion for Summary subscribers. See Dkt. Judgment Nos. 184, 191.) (179-12) Exhibit 18 to the Entire Document GRANTED Declaration of Benjamin (Contains proprietary M. Mundel in Support of business information Plaintiff’s Opposition to about Defendant’s the Motion for Summary financial performance Judgment and company strategy. See Dkt. No. 184.) (179-13) Exhibit 19 to the Entire Document DENIED Declaration of Benjamin (No supporting M. Mundel in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) the Motion for Summary (179-14) Exhibit 20 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED M. Mundel in Support of IN PART Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains Judgment proprietary business information identifying Defendant’s customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) (179-15) Exhibit 21 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED M. Mundel in Support of IN PART Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains Judgment proprietary business information identifying Defendant’s customers and regarding customer contracts. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) (179-16) Exhibit 22 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED M. Mundel in Support of IN PART Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains Judgment proprietary business information identifying Defendant’s customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) (179-17) Exhibit 23 to the Entire Document DENIED Declaration of Benjamin (No supporting M. Mundel in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) the Motion for Summary Judgment (179-18) Exhibit 24 to the Entire Document DENIED Declaration of Benjamin (No supporting M. Mundel in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) the Motion for Summary Judgment Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED M. Mundel in Support of IN PART Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains Judgment proprietary business information identifying Defendant’s customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) (179-20) Exhibit 28 to the Entire Document DENIED Declaration of Benjamin (No supporting M. Mundel in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) the Motion for Summary Judgment (179-21) Exhibit 29 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED M. Mundel in Support of IN PART Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains Judgment proprietary business information identifying Defendant’s customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) (179-22) Exhibit 30 to the Entire Document DENIED Declaration of Benjamin (No supporting M. Mundel in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) the Motion for Summary Judgment (179-23) Exhibit 32 to the Entire Document DENIED Declaration of Benjamin (No supporting M. Mundel in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) the Motion for Summary Judgment (179-24) Exhibit 33 to the Entire Document GRANTED Declaration of Benjamin (Contains proprietary M. Mundel in Support of business information Plaintiff’s Opposition to relating to the the Motion for Summary operations of Judgment Defendant. See Dkt. Nos. 90, 184, 185.) (179-25) Exhibit 34 to the Entire Document DENIED M. Mundel in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) the Motion for Summary Judgment (179-26) Exhibit 35 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED M. Mundel in Support of IN PART Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains Judgment proprietary business information identifying Defendant’s customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) N/A Exhibit 36 to the Entire Document DENIED Declaration of Benjamin (No public or sealed M. Mundel in Support of version of the Plaintiff’s Opposition to document for review.) the Motion for Summary Judgment (179-27) Exhibit 37 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED M. Mundel in Support of IN PART Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains Judgment proprietary business information identifying Defendant’s customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) (179-28) Exhibit 39 to the Entire Document DENIED Declaration of Benjamin (No supporting M. Mundel in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) the Motion for Summary Judgment (179-29) Exhibit 40 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED M. Mundel in Support of IN PART Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains Judgment proprietary business information identifying Defendant’s Nos. 184, 185.) (179-30) Exhibit 41 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED M. Mundel in Support of IN PART Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains Judgment proprietary business information identifying Defendant’s customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) (179-31) Exhibit 42 to the Entire Document DENIED Declaration of Benjamin (No supporting M. Mundel in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) the Motion for Summary Judgment (179-32) Exhibit 48 to the Entire Document DENIED Declaration of Benjamin (No supporting M. Mundel in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) the Motion for Summary Judgment (179-33) Exhibit 49 to the Entire Document DENIED Declaration of Benjamin (No supporting M. Mundel in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) the Motion for Summary Judgment (179-34) Exhibit 51 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED M. Mundel in Support of IN PART Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains Judgment proprietary business information identifying Defendant’s customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) (179-35) Exhibit 52 to the Entire Document DENIED Declaration of Benjamin (No supporting M. Mundel in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) the Motion for Summary Judgment Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED M. Mundel in Support of IN PART Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains Judgment proprietary business information identifying Defendant’s customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) (179-37) Exhibit 54 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED M. Mundel in Support of IN PART Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains Judgment proprietary business information identifying Defendant’s customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) (179-38) Exhibit 55 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED M. Mundel in Support of IN PART Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains Judgment proprietary business information identifying Defendant’s customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) (179-39) Exhibit 56 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED M. Mundel in Support of IN PART Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains Judgment proprietary business information identifying Defendant’s customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) (179-40) Exhibit 57 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED M. Mundel in Support of IN PART Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to Judgment proprietary business information identifying Defendant’s customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) (179-41) Exhibit 58 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED M. Mundel in Support of IN PART Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains Judgment proprietary business information identifying Defendant’s customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) (179-42) Exhibit 59 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED M. Mundel in Support of IN PART Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains Judgment proprietary business information identifying Defendant’s customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) (179-43) Exhibit 60 to the Entire Document GRANTED Declaration of Benjamin (Contains proprietary M. Mundel in Support of business information Plaintiff’s Opposition to and survey responses the Motion for Summary with demographic Judgment information. See Dkt. No. 179-1.) (179-44) Exhibit 61 to the Entire Document DENIED Declaration of Benjamin (No supporting M. Mundel in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) the Motion for Summary Judgment (179-45) Exhibit 63 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED M. Mundel in Support of IN PART Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains Judgment proprietary business identifying Defendant’s customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) (179-46) Exhibit 64 to the Entire Document DENIED Declaration of Benjamin (No supporting M. Mundel in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) the Motion for Summary Judgment (179-47) Exhibit 65 to the Entire Document DENIED Declaration of Benjamin (No supporting M. Mundel in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) the Motion for Summary Judgment (179-48) Exhibit 66 to the Entire Document DENIED Declaration of Benjamin (No supporting M. Mundel in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) the Motion for Summary Judgment (179-49) Exhibit 67 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED M. Mundel in Support of IN PART Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains Judgment proprietary business information identifying Defendant’s customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) (179-50) Exhibit 68 to the Entire Document DENIED Declaration of Benjamin (No supporting M. Mundel in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) the Motion for Summary Judgment (179-51) Exhibit 69 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED M. Mundel in Support of IN PART Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains Judgment proprietary business information identifying customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) (179-52) Exhibit 72 to the Entire Document GRANTED Declaration of Benjamin (Contains proprietary M. Mundel in Support of business information Plaintiff’s Opposition to about Defendant’s the Motion for Summary contracts with third- Judgment party customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) (179-53) Exhibit 73 to the Entire Document GRANTED Declaration of Benjamin (Contains proprietary M. Mundel in Support of business information Plaintiff’s Opposition to about Defendant’s the Motion for Summary contracts with third- Judgment party customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) (179-54) Exhibit 74 to the Entire Document GRANTED Declaration of Benjamin (Contains proprietary M. Mundel in Support of business information Plaintiff’s Opposition to about Defendant’s the Motion for Summary contracts with third- Judgment party customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) (179-55) Exhibit 75 to the Entire Document GRANTED Declaration of Benjamin (Contains proprietary M. Mundel in Support of business information Plaintiff’s Opposition to about Defendant’s the Motion for Summary contracts with third- Judgment party customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) (179-56) Exhibit 78 to the Entire Document DENIED Declaration of Benjamin (No supporting M. Mundel in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) the Motion for Summary Judgment (179-57) Exhibit 79 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED M. Mundel in Support of IN PART Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains Judgment proprietary business information identifying Defendant’s customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED M. Mundel in Support of IN PART Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains Judgment proprietary business information identifying Defendant’s customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) (179-59) Exhibit 81 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED M. Mundel in Support of IN PART Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains Judgment proprietary business information identifying Defendant’s customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) (179-60) Exhibit 82 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED M. Mundel in Support of IN PART Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains Judgment proprietary business information identifying Defendant’s customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) (179-61) Exhibit 83 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED M. Mundel in Support of IN PART Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains Judgment proprietary business information identifying Defendant’s customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) (179-62) Exhibit 84 to the Entire Document DENIED Declaration of Benjamin (No supporting M. Mundel in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) ndgment (179-63) Exhibit 85 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN 2 Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIE M. Mundel in Support of IN PART 3 Plaintiff's Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contain: 4 Judgment proprietary business 5 information identifying 6 Defendant’s customers. See Dkt 7 Nos. 184, 185.) 8 9 Wl. CONCLUSION 10 The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the parties’ administrative 11 motions to file under seal. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5()(1), documents filed under seal as = 12 || to which the administrative motions are granted will remain under seal. The Court DIRECTS the

& 13 || parties to file public versions of all documents for which the proposed sealing has been denied, as

v 14 indicated in the chart above, within seven days from the date of this order. © 16 Dated: 6/1/2020 = 17 : □ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. Z 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28