1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 EXELTIS USA INC., Case No. 17-cv-04810-HSG
8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO 9 v. SEAL
10 FIRST DATABANK, INC., Re: Dkt. Nos. 167, 179, 11 Defendant.
12 13 Pending before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal portions 14 of documents in connection with motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions. The Court 15 GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motions for the reasons described below. 16 I. LEGAL STANDARD 17 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 18 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 19 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 20 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 21 and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 22 access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 23 strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 24 must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 25 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 26 understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations 27 omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 1 vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public 2 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. 3 Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records 4 may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 5 without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. 6 Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. The party seeking 7 to file under seal must submit “a request that establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are 8 privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . . The 9 request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material . . . .” Civil L.R. 79- 10 5(b). Courts have found that “confidential business information” in the form of “license 11 agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies” 12 satisfies the “compelling reasons” standard. See In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17-cv-0108-GPC- 13 MDD, 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) (observing that sealing such information 14 “prevent[ed] competitors from gaining insight into the parties’ business model and strategy”); 15 Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc., No. 13-cv-03345-BLF (JSC), 2015 WL 3988132, at *5 (N.D. Cal. 16 June 30, 2015). 17 Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 18 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 19 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80 20 (quotations omitted). This requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm 21 will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 22 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of 23 harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman 24 Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). 25 II. DISCUSSION 26 Because the parties seek to seal portions and documents which pertain to summary 27 judgment motions, the Court applies the compelling reasons standard to these documents. The 1 motions. 2 As indicated in the table below, the only proffered justification for sealing many of the 3 documents is that the information was designated as “confidential” or “confidential – attorneys’ 4 eyes only” by either Plaintiff or Defendant pursuant to the parties’ protective order. But a 5 designation of confidentiality is not sufficient to establish that a document is sealable. See Civ. L. 6 R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). “Confidential” is merely the parties’ initial designation of confidentiality to 7 establish coverage under the stipulated protective order. See Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa 8 Diagnostics, Inc., No. 12-cv-05501-SI, 2015 WL 5117083, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2015) (“But 9 good cause ‘cannot be established simply by showing that the document is subject to a protective 10 order or by stating in general terms that the material is considered to be confidential’”) (quoting 11 Bain v. AstraZeneca LP, No. 09-cv-4147, 2011 WL 482767, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2011)). 12 Thus, many of the parties’ motions do not comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A). In 13 addition, in many instances the designating party for the materials did not comply with Civil Local 14 Rule 79-5(e)(1), because they did not file a declaration within four days of the motion. See Civ. 15 L.R. 79-5(e)(1). The Court finds that sealing is not warranted as to those documents. The parties 16 also appear to have omitted some exhibits, either as public or under seal versions, so the Court 17 could not make a determination about whether sealing is warranted in those circumstances. 18 Nevertheless, the Court finds that as to the remaining documents, the parties have narrowly 19 tailored their requested redactions to confidential and proprietary business, sales, or licensing 20 information, including the identities of the customers who subscribe to Defendant’s database and 21 Defendant’s financial performance and company strategy. The public release of these documents 22 could give non-party competitors an unfair advantage in the development or marketing of rival 23 products. See In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (ordering sealing where 24 documents could be used “‘as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s 25 competitive standing’”) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). 26 Thus, the Court finds that the parties have in those circumstances established either compelling 27 reasons or good cause to grant the motions to file under seal. See, e.g., Linex Techs., Inc. v. 1 v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 6115623 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2 2012). 3 Docket No. Document Portion(s) Sought to be Ruling 4 Public /(Sealed) Sealed 5 Dkt. No. 167 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART Dkt. No. 168/ Defendant’s Motion for Excerpts DENIED 6 (167-5) Summary Judgment (No supporting declaration filed. See 7 Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Dkt. No. 170/ Motion to Exclude the Excerpts DENIED 8 (167-9) Purported Expert Report (No supporting 9 and Testimony of Norman declaration filed. See Smith Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) 10 Dkt. No.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 EXELTIS USA INC., Case No. 17-cv-04810-HSG
8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO 9 v. SEAL
10 FIRST DATABANK, INC., Re: Dkt. Nos. 167, 179, 11 Defendant.
12 13 Pending before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal portions 14 of documents in connection with motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions. The Court 15 GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motions for the reasons described below. 16 I. LEGAL STANDARD 17 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 18 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 19 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 20 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 21 and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 22 access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 23 strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 24 must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 25 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 26 understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations 27 omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 1 vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public 2 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. 3 Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records 4 may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 5 without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. 6 Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. The party seeking 7 to file under seal must submit “a request that establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are 8 privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . . The 9 request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material . . . .” Civil L.R. 79- 10 5(b). Courts have found that “confidential business information” in the form of “license 11 agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies” 12 satisfies the “compelling reasons” standard. See In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17-cv-0108-GPC- 13 MDD, 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) (observing that sealing such information 14 “prevent[ed] competitors from gaining insight into the parties’ business model and strategy”); 15 Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc., No. 13-cv-03345-BLF (JSC), 2015 WL 3988132, at *5 (N.D. Cal. 16 June 30, 2015). 17 Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 18 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 19 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80 20 (quotations omitted). This requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm 21 will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 22 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of 23 harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman 24 Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). 25 II. DISCUSSION 26 Because the parties seek to seal portions and documents which pertain to summary 27 judgment motions, the Court applies the compelling reasons standard to these documents. The 1 motions. 2 As indicated in the table below, the only proffered justification for sealing many of the 3 documents is that the information was designated as “confidential” or “confidential – attorneys’ 4 eyes only” by either Plaintiff or Defendant pursuant to the parties’ protective order. But a 5 designation of confidentiality is not sufficient to establish that a document is sealable. See Civ. L. 6 R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). “Confidential” is merely the parties’ initial designation of confidentiality to 7 establish coverage under the stipulated protective order. See Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa 8 Diagnostics, Inc., No. 12-cv-05501-SI, 2015 WL 5117083, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2015) (“But 9 good cause ‘cannot be established simply by showing that the document is subject to a protective 10 order or by stating in general terms that the material is considered to be confidential’”) (quoting 11 Bain v. AstraZeneca LP, No. 09-cv-4147, 2011 WL 482767, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2011)). 12 Thus, many of the parties’ motions do not comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A). In 13 addition, in many instances the designating party for the materials did not comply with Civil Local 14 Rule 79-5(e)(1), because they did not file a declaration within four days of the motion. See Civ. 15 L.R. 79-5(e)(1). The Court finds that sealing is not warranted as to those documents. The parties 16 also appear to have omitted some exhibits, either as public or under seal versions, so the Court 17 could not make a determination about whether sealing is warranted in those circumstances. 18 Nevertheless, the Court finds that as to the remaining documents, the parties have narrowly 19 tailored their requested redactions to confidential and proprietary business, sales, or licensing 20 information, including the identities of the customers who subscribe to Defendant’s database and 21 Defendant’s financial performance and company strategy. The public release of these documents 22 could give non-party competitors an unfair advantage in the development or marketing of rival 23 products. See In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (ordering sealing where 24 documents could be used “‘as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s 25 competitive standing’”) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). 26 Thus, the Court finds that the parties have in those circumstances established either compelling 27 reasons or good cause to grant the motions to file under seal. See, e.g., Linex Techs., Inc. v. 1 v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 6115623 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2 2012). 3 Docket No. Document Portion(s) Sought to be Ruling 4 Public /(Sealed) Sealed 5 Dkt. No. 167 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART Dkt. No. 168/ Defendant’s Motion for Excerpts DENIED 6 (167-5) Summary Judgment (No supporting declaration filed. See 7 Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Dkt. No. 170/ Motion to Exclude the Excerpts DENIED 8 (167-9) Purported Expert Report (No supporting 9 and Testimony of Norman declaration filed. See Smith Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) 10 Dkt. No. 169/ Motion to Exclude the Excerpts DENIED (167-7) Purported Testimony of (No supporting 11 Kevin Gorospe declaration filed. See 12 Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Dkt. No. 171-8/ Exhibit H to the Entire Document DENIED 13 (167-12) Declaration of Ravi V. (No supporting Sitwala in Support of declaration filed. See 14 Defendant’s Motions for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Summary Judgment and 15 to Strike Expert 16 Testimony Dkt. No. 171-9/ Exhibit I to the Entire Document DENIED 17 (167-13) Declaration of Ravi V. (No supporting Sitwala in Support of declaration filed. See 18 Defendant’s Motions for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Summary Judgment and 19 to Strike Expert 20 Testimony Dkt. No. 171-11/ Exhibit K to the Entire Document DENIED 21 (167-14) Declaration of Ravi V. (No supporting Sitwala in Support of declaration filed. See 22 Defendant’s Motions for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) 23 Summary Judgment and to Strike Expert 24 Testimony Dkt. No. 171-12/ Exhibit L to the Entire Document DENIED 25 (167-15) Declaration of Ravi V. (No supporting Sitwala in Support of declaration filed. See 26 Defendant’s Motions for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) 27 Summary Judgment and to Strike Expert Dkt. No. 171-13/ Exhibit M to the Entire Document DENIED 1 (167-16) Declaration of Ravi V. (No supporting 2 Sitwala in Support of declaration filed. See Defendant’s Motions for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) 3 Summary Judgment and to Strike Expert 4 Testimony Dkt. No. 171-14/ Exhibit N to the Entire Document DENIED 5 (167-17) Declaration of Ravi V. (No supporting 6 Sitwala in Support of declaration filed. See Defendant’s Motions for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) 7 Summary Judgment and to Strike Expert 8 Testimony Dkt. No. 171-15/ Exhibit O to the Entire Document DENIED 9 (167-18) Declaration of Ravi V. (No supporting 10 Sitwala in Support of declaration filed. See Defendant’s Motions for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) 11 Summary Judgment and to Strike Expert 12 Testimony 13 Dkt. No. 171-16/ Exhibit P to the Entire Document DENIED (167-19) Declaration of Ravi V. (No supporting 14 Sitwala in Support of declaration filed. See Defendant’s Motions for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) 15 Summary Judgment and to Strike Expert 16 Testimony 17 Dkt. No. 171-17/ Exhibit Q to the Entire Document DENIED (167-20) Declaration of Ravi V. (No supporting 18 Sitwala in Support of declaration filed. See Defendant’s Motions for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) 19 Summary Judgment and to Strike Expert 20 Testimony 21 Dkt. No. 171-18/ Exhibit R to the Entire Document DENIED (167-21) Declaration of Ravi V. (No supporting 22 Sitwala in Support of declaration filed. See Defendant’s Motions for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) 23 Summary Judgment and to Strike Expert 24 Testimony 25 Dkt. No. 171-19/ Exhibit S to the Entire Document DENIED (167-22) Declaration of Ravi V. (No supporting 26 Sitwala in Support of declaration filed. See Defendant’s Motions for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) 27 Summary Judgment and Testimony 1 Dkt. No. 171-20/ Exhibit T to the Entire Document DENIED 2 (167-23) Declaration of Ravi V. (No supporting Sitwala in Support of declaration filed. See 3 Defendant’s Motions for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Summary Judgment and 4 to Strike Expert Testimony 5 Dkt. No. 171-21/ Exhibit U to the Entire Document DENIED 6 (167-24) Declaration of Ravi V. (No supporting Sitwala in Support of declaration filed. See 7 Defendant’s Motions for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Summary Judgment and 8 to Strike Expert Testimony 9 Dkt. No. 171-22/ Exhibit V to the Entire Document DENIED 10 (167-25) Declaration of Ravi V. (No supporting Sitwala in Support of declaration filed. See 11 Defendant’s Motions for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Summary Judgment and 12 to Strike Expert 13 Testimony Dkt. No. 171-23/ Exhibit W to the Entire Document DENIED 14 (167-26) Declaration of Ravi V. (No supporting Sitwala in Support of declaration filed. See 15 Defendant’s Motions for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Summary Judgment and 16 to Strike Expert 17 Testimony Dkt. No. 171-26/ Exhibit Z to the Entire Document DENIED 18 (167-27) Declaration of Ravi V. (No supporting Sitwala in Support of declaration filed. See 19 Defendant’s Motions for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Summary Judgment and 20 to Strike Expert 21 Testimony Dkt. No. 171-29/ Exhibit CC to the Entire Document DENIED 22 (167-28) Declaration of Ravi V. (No supporting Sitwala in Support of declaration filed. See 23 Defendant’s Motions for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) 24 Summary Judgment and to Strike Expert 25 Testimony Dkt. No. 171-39/ Exhibit MM to the Entire Document DENIED 26 (167-29) Declaration of Ravi V. (No supporting Sitwala in Support of declaration filed. See 27 Defendant’s Motions for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) to Strike Expert 1 Testimony 2 Dkt. No. 171-41/ Exhibit OO to the Entire Document DENIED (167-29) Declaration of Ravi V. (No supporting 3 Sitwala in Support of declaration filed. See Defendant’s Motions for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) 4 Summary Judgment and to Strike Expert 5 Testimony 6 Dkt. No. 171-43/ Exhibit QQ to the Excerpts GRANTED (167-30) Declaration of Ravi V. (Contains proprietary 7 Sitwala in Support of business information Defendant’s Motions for about Defendant’s 8 Summary Judgment and subscribers. See Dkt. to Strike Expert No. 167-2.) 9 Testimony 10 Dkt. No. 171-44/ Exhibit RR to the Entire Document GRANTED IN (167-31) Declaration of Ravi V. PART and DENIED 11 Sitwala in Support of IN PART Defendant’s Motions for (Pages 14 and 15 12 Summary Judgment and contain proprietary 13 to Strike Expert business information Testimony about Defendant’s 14 subscribers. However, no 15 supporting declaration filed as to 16 the rest of the 17 document. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) 18 Dkt. No. 179 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART Dkt. No. 180/ Page 4:13–17 GRANTED 19 (179-2) Page 5:2–21 (Contains proprietary Page 6:3–6, 12–25 business information 20 Page 7:1–12, 17–28 about Defendant’s 21 Page 8:1–6 subscribers. See Dkt. Page 12:11–13 Nos. 184, 185.) 22 Page 15:5–17, 20–23 Page 16:1–8, 1–28 23 Page 17:1, 4–7, 11–16 Page 20:2 24 Page 22:3–28 25 Page 23:1–9 Page 24:1–4, 14–28 26 Page 25:1–7 Page 26:1–26 27 Page 27:1–4 Page 33:8–9, 28 1 Page 34:1–23 2 (179-3) Exhibit 2 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED 3 M. Mundel in Support of IN PART Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to 4 the Motion for Summary the text that contains Judgment proprietary business 5 information 6 identifying Defendant’s 7 customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) 8 (179-4) Exhibit 3 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED 9 M. Mundel in Support of IN PART 10 Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains 11 Judgment proprietary business information 12 identifying Defendant’s 13 customers. See Dkt. 14 Nos. 184, 185.) (179-5) Exhibit 8 to the Entire Document GRANTED 15 Declaration of Benjamin (Contains proprietary M. Mundel in Support of business information 16 Plaintiff’s Opposition to about Plaintiff’s 17 the Motion for Summary contracts with third Judgment parties. See Dkt. No. 18 179-1.) (179-6) Exhibit 9 to the Entire Document GRANTED 19 Declaration of Benjamin (Contains proprietary M. Mundel in Support of business information 20 Plaintiff’s Opposition to about Plaintiff’s 21 the Motion for Summary contracts with third Judgment parties. See Dkt. No. 22 179-1.) (179-7) Exhibit 10 to the Entire Document GRANTED 23 Declaration of Benjamin (Contains proprietary M. Mundel in Support of business information 24 Plaintiff’s Opposition to about Plaintiff’s 25 the Motion for Summary contracts with third Judgment parties. See Dkt. No. 26 179-1.) (179-8) Exhibit 11 to the Entire Document GRANTED 27 Declaration of Benjamin (Contains proprietary Plaintiff’s Opposition to about Plaintiff’s 1 the Motion for Summary contracts with third 2 Judgment parties. See Dkt. No. 179-1.) 3 N/A Exhibit 12 to the Entire Document DENIED Declaration of Benjamin (No public or sealed 4 M. Mundel in Support of version of the Plaintiff’s Opposition to document for review.) 5 the Motion for Summary 6 Judgment (179-9) Exhibit 13 to the Entire Document GRANTED 7 Declaration of Benjamin (Contains proprietary M. Mundel in Support of business information 8 Plaintiff’s Opposition to about Plaintiff’s the Motion for Summary contracts with third 9 Judgment parties. See Dkt. No. 10 179-1.) (179-10) Exhibit 16 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN 11 Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED M. Mundel in Support of IN PART 12 Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to 13 the Motion for Summary the text that contains Judgment proprietary business 14 information identifying 15 Defendant’s customers. See Dkt. 16 Nos. 184, 185.) 17 (179-11) Exhibit 17 to the Entire Document GRANTED Declaration of Benjamin (Contains proprietary 18 M. Mundel in Support of business information Plaintiff’s Opposition to about Defendant’s 19 the Motion for Summary subscribers. See Dkt. Judgment Nos. 184, 191.) 20 (179-12) Exhibit 18 to the Entire Document GRANTED 21 Declaration of Benjamin (Contains proprietary M. Mundel in Support of business information 22 Plaintiff’s Opposition to about Defendant’s the Motion for Summary financial performance 23 Judgment and company strategy. See Dkt. 24 No. 184.) 25 (179-13) Exhibit 19 to the Entire Document DENIED Declaration of Benjamin (No supporting 26 M. Mundel in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) 27 the Motion for Summary (179-14) Exhibit 20 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN 1 Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED 2 M. Mundel in Support of IN PART Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to 3 the Motion for Summary the text that contains Judgment proprietary business 4 information identifying 5 Defendant’s 6 customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) 7 (179-15) Exhibit 21 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED 8 M. Mundel in Support of IN PART Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to 9 the Motion for Summary the text that contains 10 Judgment proprietary business information 11 identifying Defendant’s 12 customers and regarding customer 13 contracts. See Dkt. 14 Nos. 184, 185.) (179-16) Exhibit 22 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN 15 Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED M. Mundel in Support of IN PART 16 Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to 17 the Motion for Summary the text that contains Judgment proprietary business 18 information identifying 19 Defendant’s customers. See Dkt. 20 Nos. 184, 185.) 21 (179-17) Exhibit 23 to the Entire Document DENIED Declaration of Benjamin (No supporting 22 M. Mundel in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) 23 the Motion for Summary Judgment 24 (179-18) Exhibit 24 to the Entire Document DENIED 25 Declaration of Benjamin (No supporting M. Mundel in Support of declaration filed. See 26 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) the Motion for Summary 27 Judgment Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED 1 M. Mundel in Support of IN PART 2 Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains 3 Judgment proprietary business information 4 identifying Defendant’s 5 customers. See Dkt. 6 Nos. 184, 185.) (179-20) Exhibit 28 to the Entire Document DENIED 7 Declaration of Benjamin (No supporting M. Mundel in Support of declaration filed. See 8 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) the Motion for Summary 9 Judgment 10 (179-21) Exhibit 29 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED 11 M. Mundel in Support of IN PART Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to 12 the Motion for Summary the text that contains Judgment proprietary business 13 information 14 identifying Defendant’s 15 customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) 16 (179-22) Exhibit 30 to the Entire Document DENIED 17 Declaration of Benjamin (No supporting M. Mundel in Support of declaration filed. See 18 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) the Motion for Summary 19 Judgment (179-23) Exhibit 32 to the Entire Document DENIED 20 Declaration of Benjamin (No supporting 21 M. Mundel in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) 22 the Motion for Summary Judgment 23 (179-24) Exhibit 33 to the Entire Document GRANTED Declaration of Benjamin (Contains proprietary 24 M. Mundel in Support of business information 25 Plaintiff’s Opposition to relating to the the Motion for Summary operations of 26 Judgment Defendant. See Dkt. Nos. 90, 184, 185.) 27 (179-25) Exhibit 34 to the Entire Document DENIED M. Mundel in Support of declaration filed. See 1 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) 2 the Motion for Summary Judgment 3 (179-26) Exhibit 35 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED 4 M. Mundel in Support of IN PART Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to 5 the Motion for Summary the text that contains 6 Judgment proprietary business information 7 identifying Defendant’s 8 customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) 9 N/A Exhibit 36 to the Entire Document DENIED 10 Declaration of Benjamin (No public or sealed M. Mundel in Support of version of the 11 Plaintiff’s Opposition to document for review.) the Motion for Summary 12 Judgment 13 (179-27) Exhibit 37 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED 14 M. Mundel in Support of IN PART Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to 15 the Motion for Summary the text that contains Judgment proprietary business 16 information 17 identifying Defendant’s 18 customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) 19 (179-28) Exhibit 39 to the Entire Document DENIED Declaration of Benjamin (No supporting 20 M. Mundel in Support of declaration filed. See 21 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) the Motion for Summary 22 Judgment (179-29) Exhibit 40 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN 23 Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED M. Mundel in Support of IN PART 24 Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to 25 the Motion for Summary the text that contains Judgment proprietary business 26 information identifying 27 Defendant’s Nos. 184, 185.) 1 (179-30) Exhibit 41 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN 2 Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED M. Mundel in Support of IN PART 3 Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains 4 Judgment proprietary business information 5 identifying 6 Defendant’s customers. See Dkt. 7 Nos. 184, 185.) (179-31) Exhibit 42 to the Entire Document DENIED 8 Declaration of Benjamin (No supporting M. Mundel in Support of declaration filed. See 9 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) 10 the Motion for Summary Judgment 11 (179-32) Exhibit 48 to the Entire Document DENIED Declaration of Benjamin (No supporting 12 M. Mundel in Support of declaration filed. See 13 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) the Motion for Summary 14 Judgment (179-33) Exhibit 49 to the Entire Document DENIED 15 Declaration of Benjamin (No supporting M. Mundel in Support of declaration filed. See 16 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) 17 the Motion for Summary Judgment 18 (179-34) Exhibit 51 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED 19 M. Mundel in Support of IN PART Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to 20 the Motion for Summary the text that contains 21 Judgment proprietary business information 22 identifying Defendant’s 23 customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) 24 (179-35) Exhibit 52 to the Entire Document DENIED 25 Declaration of Benjamin (No supporting M. Mundel in Support of declaration filed. See 26 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) the Motion for Summary 27 Judgment Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED 1 M. Mundel in Support of IN PART 2 Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains 3 Judgment proprietary business information 4 identifying Defendant’s 5 customers. See Dkt. 6 Nos. 184, 185.) (179-37) Exhibit 54 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN 7 Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED M. Mundel in Support of IN PART 8 Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains 9 Judgment proprietary business 10 information identifying 11 Defendant’s customers. See Dkt. 12 Nos. 184, 185.) (179-38) Exhibit 55 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN 13 Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED 14 M. Mundel in Support of IN PART Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to 15 the Motion for Summary the text that contains Judgment proprietary business 16 information 17 identifying Defendant’s 18 customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) 19 (179-39) Exhibit 56 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED 20 M. Mundel in Support of IN PART 21 Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains 22 Judgment proprietary business information 23 identifying Defendant’s 24 customers. See Dkt. 25 Nos. 184, 185.) (179-40) Exhibit 57 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN 26 Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED M. Mundel in Support of IN PART 27 Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to Judgment proprietary business 1 information 2 identifying Defendant’s 3 customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) 4 (179-41) Exhibit 58 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED 5 M. Mundel in Support of IN PART 6 Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains 7 Judgment proprietary business information 8 identifying Defendant’s 9 customers. See Dkt. 10 Nos. 184, 185.) (179-42) Exhibit 59 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN 11 Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED M. Mundel in Support of IN PART 12 Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains 13 Judgment proprietary business 14 information identifying 15 Defendant’s customers. See Dkt. 16 Nos. 184, 185.) 17 (179-43) Exhibit 60 to the Entire Document GRANTED Declaration of Benjamin (Contains proprietary 18 M. Mundel in Support of business information Plaintiff’s Opposition to and survey responses 19 the Motion for Summary with demographic Judgment information. See Dkt. 20 No. 179-1.) 21 (179-44) Exhibit 61 to the Entire Document DENIED Declaration of Benjamin (No supporting 22 M. Mundel in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) 23 the Motion for Summary Judgment 24 (179-45) Exhibit 63 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN 25 Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED M. Mundel in Support of IN PART 26 Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains 27 Judgment proprietary business identifying 1 Defendant’s 2 customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) 3 (179-46) Exhibit 64 to the Entire Document DENIED Declaration of Benjamin (No supporting 4 M. Mundel in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) 5 the Motion for Summary 6 Judgment (179-47) Exhibit 65 to the Entire Document DENIED 7 Declaration of Benjamin (No supporting M. Mundel in Support of declaration filed. See 8 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) the Motion for Summary 9 Judgment 10 (179-48) Exhibit 66 to the Entire Document DENIED Declaration of Benjamin (No supporting 11 M. Mundel in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) 12 the Motion for Summary 13 Judgment (179-49) Exhibit 67 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN 14 Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED M. Mundel in Support of IN PART 15 Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains 16 Judgment proprietary business 17 information identifying 18 Defendant’s customers. See Dkt. 19 Nos. 184, 185.) (179-50) Exhibit 68 to the Entire Document DENIED 20 Declaration of Benjamin (No supporting 21 M. Mundel in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) 22 the Motion for Summary Judgment 23 (179-51) Exhibit 69 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN 24 Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED M. Mundel in Support of IN PART 25 Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains 26 Judgment proprietary business information 27 identifying customers. See Dkt. 1 Nos. 184, 185.) 2 (179-52) Exhibit 72 to the Entire Document GRANTED Declaration of Benjamin (Contains proprietary 3 M. Mundel in Support of business information Plaintiff’s Opposition to about Defendant’s 4 the Motion for Summary contracts with third- Judgment party customers. See 5 Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) 6 (179-53) Exhibit 73 to the Entire Document GRANTED Declaration of Benjamin (Contains proprietary 7 M. Mundel in Support of business information Plaintiff’s Opposition to about Defendant’s 8 the Motion for Summary contracts with third- Judgment party customers. See 9 Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) 10 (179-54) Exhibit 74 to the Entire Document GRANTED Declaration of Benjamin (Contains proprietary 11 M. Mundel in Support of business information Plaintiff’s Opposition to about Defendant’s 12 the Motion for Summary contracts with third- 13 Judgment party customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) 14 (179-55) Exhibit 75 to the Entire Document GRANTED Declaration of Benjamin (Contains proprietary 15 M. Mundel in Support of business information Plaintiff’s Opposition to about Defendant’s 16 the Motion for Summary contracts with third- 17 Judgment party customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) 18 (179-56) Exhibit 78 to the Entire Document DENIED Declaration of Benjamin (No supporting 19 M. Mundel in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) 20 the Motion for Summary 21 Judgment (179-57) Exhibit 79 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN 22 Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED M. Mundel in Support of IN PART 23 Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to 24 the Motion for Summary the text that contains Judgment proprietary business 25 information identifying 26 Defendant’s customers. See Dkt. 27 Nos. 184, 185.) Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED 1 M. Mundel in Support of IN PART 2 Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains 3 Judgment proprietary business information 4 identifying Defendant’s 5 customers. See Dkt. 6 Nos. 184, 185.) (179-59) Exhibit 81 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN 7 Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED M. Mundel in Support of IN PART 8 Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains 9 Judgment proprietary business 10 information identifying 11 Defendant’s customers. See Dkt. 12 Nos. 184, 185.) (179-60) Exhibit 82 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN 13 Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED 14 M. Mundel in Support of IN PART Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to 15 the Motion for Summary the text that contains Judgment proprietary business 16 information 17 identifying Defendant’s 18 customers. See Dkt. Nos. 184, 185.) 19 (179-61) Exhibit 83 to the Entire Document GRANTED IN Declaration of Benjamin PART and DENIED 20 M. Mundel in Support of IN PART 21 Plaintiff’s Opposition to (Granted only as to the Motion for Summary the text that contains 22 Judgment proprietary business information 23 identifying Defendant’s 24 customers. See Dkt. 25 Nos. 184, 185.) (179-62) Exhibit 84 to the Entire Document DENIED 26 Declaration of Benjamin (No supporting M. Mundel in Support of declaration filed. See 27 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. © 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 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