Facebook, Inc. v. OnLineNic Inc

Opinion

FACEBOOK, INC., et al., Case No. 19-cv-07071-SI

Plaintiffs, ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE v. MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL

ONLINENIC INC, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 300, 302, 319, 321, 325, 336, Defendants. 340, 342

The Court has before it multiple motions to seal, including supplemental motions and several errata, filed in conjunction with plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendant’s answer and for entry of default against defendant Xiamen 35.com Internet Technology Co., Ltd. (“35.CN”). See Dkt. Nos. 300, 302, 319, 321, 325, 336, 340, 342. The parties agree that because the underlying motion is a dispositive one,1 the “compelling reasons” standard applies. In the Ninth Circuit, with the exception of a narrow range of documents that are “traditionally kept secret,” courts begin their sealing analysis with “a strong presumption in favor of access.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). When applying to file documents under seal in connection with a dispositive motion, the submitting party bears the burden of “articulating compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public 1 Plaintiffs originally filed the underlying motion as a motion to strike 35.CN’s answer and for default, in other words, a motion for terminating sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure interest in understanding the judicial process.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit has explained: Under this stringent standard, a court may seal records only when it finds a compelling reason and articulates the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture. The court must then conscientiously balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret. What constitutes a “compelling reason” is best left to the sound discretion of the trial court. Examples include when a court record might be used to gratify private spite or promote public scandal, to circulate libelous statements, or as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2016) (citations, internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted). In addition, all requests to file under seal must be “narrowly tailored,” such that only sealable information is sought to be redacted from public access. Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3).

DISCUSSION The parties (plaintiffs, 35.CN, and the OnlineNIC defendants),2 as well as third-party Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”), have filed statements regarding the various sealing motions. To summarize, plaintiffs did not file a statement in support of sealing any material, explaining that 35.CN’s “Opposition and supporting declarations contain only conclusions abstracted from documents produced and designated by Plaintiffs in the course of discovery” and that “Plaintiffs do not believe that sealing those portions of the Opposition and supporting declarations purportedly containing Plaintiffs’ confidential information is necessary.” Dkt. No. 323 at 2. ICANN seeks to seal material that “reflect[s] personal identifiable information provided to ICANN.” Dkt. No. 309 at 1; Dkt. No. 326. ICANN, however, did not file a declaration in support of sealing material filed in connection with 35.CN’s opposition brief or plaintiffs’ objection to sur-reply evidence.3 The OnlineNIC defendants have filed several declarations in

2 The OnlineNIC defendants are comprised of defendants OnlineNIC Inc. (“OnlineNIC”) and Domain ID Shield Service Co. (“ID Shield”). support of sealing material, see Dkt. Nos. 312, 313, 334. OnlineNIC’s declarations go through line- by-line analysis of which portions of the materials the OnlineNIC defendants still wish to have sealed. They largely seek to seal information they say “is competitively sensitive, internal corporate financial information disclosing profitability.” See Dkt. No. 334 at 2-9. 35.CN has filed declarations in support of sealing essentially all of the material that 35.CN has designated as confidential. See Dkt. Nos. 310, 319-1, 328, 336-1, 344. The Court has reviewed the declarations and the material sought to be sealed. The Court will grant the motions requesting sealing of the materials for which ICANN filed a declaration in support of sealing. For the remainder of the material, the Court will seal only those portions of the filings that are financial figures or that disclose the names and contact information of rank-and-file employees. A party may move to seal confidential business and financial information that includes, among other items, financial terms of agreements, business strategies, and confidential negotiations. See Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., 2020 WL 2838812 at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020); In re Qualcomm Litig., 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017). As to the remaining sealing requests, those are denied for failure to meet the legal standard and because the requests are not narrowly tailored. The Court finds that 35.CN’s sealing motions in particular are overbroad and unsupported by compelling reasons. The Local Rules of this District caution that “overly broad requests to seal may result in the denial of a motion.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(6). Looking at what 35.CN seeks to seal, almost none of the information could be construed as confidential. Rather, most of it involves the relationships among the parties that go to the very heart of the Court’s recent order on the question of alter ego. See Dkt. No. 351. For instance, 35.CN seeks to seal the portions of plaintiffs’ motion stating that Carrie Yu signed the Service Outsource Contracts on behalf of OnlineNIC at the same time that she was an employee of 35.CN, paid solely by 35.CN. See Dkt. No. 299, Pls.’ Mot. at 5:14-15. As another example, 35.CN—which is a publicly owned company—seeks to seal the identities of its wholly owned subsidiaries and its largest shareholders, officers, and directors. See Kroll Decl., Ex. A, App’x A at 5-6. but rather states, as to everything, that the documents “contain information concerning private financial transactions of Defendant, personal information about employees of Defendant and Defendant’s Chinese business partners, and the identities of employees of Defendant.” See, e.g., Dkt. No 310 ¶ 5. Relying “upon the analysis of Chinese outside counsel for Defendant,” 35.CN asserts that “Chinese law prohibits Chinese companies from disclosing a wide variety of data and personal information about Chinese residents to entities outside of China.” See id. ¶¶ 6, 9. 35.CN cites to outside counsel’s analysis, attached to a discovery dispute letter form June 2022. See id. ¶ 9 (citing Dkt. No. 247-11). The Court is not persuaded that this letter, written by a law firm that represents 35.CN in response to a discovery dispute, creates a compelling reason to seal from public view basic information such as who signed OnlineNIC and 35.CN’s outsourcing contracts. Moreover, the letter describes certain processes that Chinese companies may go through in order to validly disclose certain data. 35.CN has been on notice of the relevant issues in this case since at least August 2021 and should have taken steps to share the information necessary to support its litigation position. To the extent that 35.CN relies on the Court having granted “similar requests” earlier in this case, see Dkt. No. 328 ¶ 11, the Court reminds 35.CN that courts have “carved out an exception . . . for sealed materials attached to a discovery motion unrelated to the merits of a case[,]” applying a “good cause” standard. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 (citations omitted). For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS that the motions to seal are granted or denied as follows: /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike and Related Documents: Document Evidence Offered in Support Order of Sealing Memorandum of Points and Dkt. No. 310 (35.CN DENIED, except as to Authorities in Support of Motion to Declaration) the dollar figures listed Strike Defendant’s Answer and for in Motion at 3:18, 5:19, Entry of Default Against Defendant 6:7, 6 n.8 (approx. lines 35.CN (“Motion”) at Page 3, 20-21), 14:4. Line 1;4 3:17-18; 5:14-15, 5:17-19; 6:1, 6:5-9; 6:20-21; 6:24-25; 7:5; 9:9-20; 12:12-13; 13:10-12; 13:18-19; 14:2; 14:4-8; 14:14-15; 16:18. Motion at 3:5-6; 3:12-14; 3:19-20; Dkt. Nos. 312, 334 DENIED, except as to 3:23-25; 4:1, 4:17-19; 5:3-4; (OnlineNIC Defendants’ the dollar figures, 5:9-13; 6:2-4; 6:10-12; 6:15-18; Declarations) references to ID Shield, 6:21-22; 6:25-27; 7:1-15; 7:17-21; and names of rank-and- 7:25-26; 8:1-14; 8:23-27; file employees listed in 11:10-12; 11:17; 11:22-24; Motion at 6:10, 7:1-14, 12:9-11; 12:14-17; 13:1; 13:4-6; 7:17-21, 8:1-13, 8:23- 13:18-19; 13:22-24; 13:27; 14:1; 25, 14:9-10, 15:6-15, 14:9-10; 14:14-15; 15:5-18; 15:21; 16:6-7. 16:3-4; 16:6-7; 16:15-22; 19:4-5; 19:9-11; 19:17. Document Evidence Offered in Support Order of Sealing Motion at 2:21; 2:26-27; 3:2-4; 3:8; Dkt. No. 309 (ICANN GRANTED. 3:11-12; 3:22-23; 3:27; 4:1-2; Declaration) 4:23-27; 5:1; 5:22; 19:17. Declaration of Howard A. Kroll in 35.CN Declaration DENIED, except as to Support of Motion to Strike the dollar figures listed Defendant’s Answer and for Entry in Kroll Declaration at of Default Against Defendant 2:25, 3:19-20, 3:22, 35.CN (“Kroll Declaration”) at 7:19, 11:7-8. 2:22-26; 3:1-6; 3:8-10; 3:15; 3:19-20; 3:22-25; 5:19-20; 7:18-20; 11:3-13; 14:5-7. Kroll Declaration at 5:23-25; OnlineNIC Defendants’ DENIED, except as to 6:1-15; 8:15-16; 8:19-20; 8:23-24; Declarations the employee names and 8:27-28; 9:3-6; 9:9-14; 9:17-19; email addresses, and the 9:23-27; 10:2-6; 10:9-12; dollar figures listed in 10:16-21; 11:19-28; 12:1-2; Kroll Declaration at 6:1- 12:14-28; 13:1-14; 13:24-25; 15, 9:11, 9:19, 9:25-27, 14:12-15. 10:4-5, 10:11-12, 10:18- 19, 11:19-20, 11:22, 11:27-28, 12:1, 12:15, 12:20, 12:23, 12:26-28, 13:1-3, 13:5-14, 13:25. Kroll Declaration at 4:2-3; 4:6-7; ICANN Declaration GRANTED. 4:11-13; 4:16-19; 5:7; 5:11-12; 5:19-20; 8:1-4; 8:7-11. Document Evidence Offered in Support Order of Sealing Exhibit 1 to the Kroll Declaration at 35.CN Declaration DENIED, except as to 3:17-28; 4:1-17, 28, 8:9-20; 9:7-15; the dollar figures listed 10:2-8; 10:18-28; 11:1-8; in Exhibit 1 at 4:1-17, 11:18-28; 12:1; Appendix pp. 5-6. 10:20-28, 11:1-8, 11:21- 28, 12:1. Exhibit 2 to the Kroll Declaration ICANN Declaration GRANTED. Exhibit 3 to the Kroll Declaration ICANN Declaration GRANTED. Exhibit 4 to the Kroll Declaration ICANN Declaration GRANTED. Exhibit 5 to the Kroll Declaration ICANN Declaration GRANTED. Exhibit 7 to the Kroll Declaration OnlineNIC Defendants’ DENIED. OnlineNIC Declarations defendants do not object. Exhibit 8 to the Kroll Declaration OnlineNIC Defendants’ DENIED, except as to Declarations the exhibits attached to Exhibit 8 and the dollar figures listed in Exhibit 8 at 62:22-24, 63:2, 63:6, 63:10, 63:17, 63:25, 64:19, 67:7, 67:9, 67:12, 67:16, 67:21. Exhibit 9 to the Kroll Declaration ICANN Declaration GRANTED. Exhibit 10 to the Kroll Declaration ICANN Declaration GRANTED. Exhibit 12 to the Kroll Declaration ICANN Declaration GRANTED. Exhibit 13 to the Kroll Declaration OnlineNIC Defendants’ GRANTED. Declarations Document Evidence Offered in Support Order of Sealing Exhibit 19 to the Kroll Declaration 35.CN Declaration DENIED, except as to the dollar figure listed in Exhibit 19 at 35CN017283. Exhibit 21 to the Kroll Declaration ICANN Declaration GRANTED. Exhibit 22 to the Kroll Declaration ICANN Declaration GRANTED. Exhibit 23 to the Kroll Declaration OnlineNIC Defendants’ DENIED, except as to Declarations the dollar figures listed on the tax returns. Exhibit 24 to the Kroll Declaration OnlineNIC Defendants’ DENIED, except as to Declarations the dollar figures listed on the tax returns. Exhibit 25 to the Kroll Declaration OnlineNIC Defendants’ DENIED, except as to Declarations the dollar figures listed on the tax returns. Exhibit 26 to the Kroll Declaration OnlineNIC Defendants’ DENIED, except as to Declarations the dollar figures listed on the tax returns. Exhibit 27 to the Kroll Declaration OnlineNIC Defendants’ DENIED, except as to Declarations the dollar figures listed on the tax returns. Exhibit 28 to the Kroll Declaration OnlineNIC Defendants’ DENIED, except as to Declarations the dollar figures listed on the tax returns. Document Evidence Offered in Support Order of Sealing Exhibit 29 to the Kroll Declaration OnlineNIC Defendants’ DENIED, except as to Declarations the dollar figures listed on the tax returns. Exhibit 30 to the Kroll Declaration OnlineNIC Defendants’ DENIED, except as to Declarations the dollar figures listed on the tax returns. Exhibit 31 to the Kroll Declaration OnlineNIC Defendants’ DENIED, except as to Declarations the dollar figures listed on the tax returns. Exhibit 32 to the Kroll Declaration OnlineNIC Defendants’ DENIED, except as to Declarations the dollar figures listed on the tax returns. Exhibit 33 to the Kroll Declaration OnlineNIC Defendants’ DENIED, except as to Declarations the dollar figures listed on the tax returns. Exhibit 35 to the Kroll Declaration ICANN Declaration GRANTED. Exhibit 36 to the Kroll Declaration 35.CN Declaration DENIED, except as to the dollar figures listed at 35CN0040425, 35CN0040430, 35CN0040435, 35CN0040440, 35CN0040445, 35CN0040450, 35CN0040455, 35CN0040468. Document Evidence Offered in Support Order of Sealing Exhibit 37 to the Kroll Declaration OnlineNIC Defendants’ GRANTED. Declarations Exhibit 39 to the Kroll Declaration OnlineNIC Defendants’ DENIED, except as to at Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 5.1, 5.2, 6 Declarations the dollar figures listed at Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 5.1, 5.2, 6. Exhibit 41 to the Kroll Declaration OnlineNIC Defendants’ GRANTED. Declarations Exhibit 43 to the Kroll Declaration 35.CN Declaration GRANTED.

35.CN’s Opposition and Related Documents: Document or Portion of Document Evidence Offered in Order Sought to Be Sealed Support of Sealing Opposition Brief at 1:19–20; 5:12–13; Declaration of Karl S. DENIED, except as to 6:3–4: 6:5–6; 6:10–11; 6:14–21; 6:22; Kronenberger in Support of the dollar figures listed 6:23–27; 6:28–7:3; 7:4–6; 7:7–9; 7:20; Defendant Xiamen 35.com in the Opposition at 7:22–25; 7:27; 8:3; 8:8–10; 8:24–8:26; Internet Technology Co., 8:10. Ltd.’s Motion to File Portions 11:11; 12:12; 14:18; 14:19; 14:27–28; of Opposition Under Seal 15:7–8; 19:10–18; 20:11–14; 20:25–21:1– [ECF No. 319.01] (“35.CN 3; 21:6–11; 22:12–13 Declaration”) Opposition Brief at 4:9; 4:28, 5:28, Dkt. No. 334 DENIED, except as to portions of fn. 9; 8:10; 8:21–22 (OnlineNIC Defendants’ the dollar figures listed Declaration) in the Opposition at 8:10. OnlineNIC defendants do not object to unsealing the remaining portions. Opposition Brief at 4:10–14; 4:26–27, Plaintiffs’ Statement in DENIED. Plaintiffs do (portions of fn. 8) Response to Motion to Seal not object. (“Plaintiffs’ Statement”) Declaration of Karl S. Kronenberger in 35.CN Declaration DENIED. Support of the Opposition (“Kronenberger Decl.”) at 1:18; 1:26–27; 2:2–3; 2:9–11; 2:14–16; 2:22–24 Document or Portion of Document Evidence Offered in Order Sought to Be Sealed Support of Sealing Kronenberger Decl. 3:17–21; 3:22 OnlineNIC Defendants’ DENIED. OnlineNIC Declaration defendants do not object to unsealing. Kronenberger Decl. 3:27–4:1 Plaintiffs’ Statement DENIED. Plaintiffs do not object. Ex. A to Kronenberger Decl. – Rebuttal Forthcoming Declaration DENIED. No to Kroll Declaration5at 8:A; portions of provided by ICANN supporting declaration 8:B; 9:A; portions of 10:A; 16:A; filed. portions of 16:B Ex. A to Kronenberger Decl. – Rebuttal 35.CN Declaration DENIED, except as to to Kroll Declaration at 2:A; portions of the dollar figures listed 2:B; 3:A; 4A; 5A; 5B; 6A; portions of in Exhibit A at 2:A. 6B; portions of 9B; 10B; portions of 11B; portions of 14B; portions of 15B; portions of 16B; portions of 17B; 19A; portions of 19B; portions of 20B; portions of 22B; portions of 23B; 25A; portions of 25B Ex. A to Kronenberger Decl. – Rebuttal to OnlineNIC Defendants’ DENIED. Kroll Declaration at 11:A; 17:A; portions Declaration of 17B; 20:A; 21:A; 22:A; 23:A; portions of 24:A; portions of 24:B; 26:A; portions of 26B Ex. B to Kronenberger Decl. – 35.CN’s 35.CN Declaration DENIED, except as to Further Amended and Supplemental the dollar figures listed Responses to First Set of Interrogatories in Exhibit B at 4:1-17, at 3:15–4:17; 4:24–7:27; 8:6–8:20; 10:20-28, 11:1-8, 9:2-9:15; 9:25–10:8; 10:15–11:8; 11:21-28, 12:1. 11:15-12:1; (portions of Appendix A thereto) Ex. C to Kronenberger Decl. – Documents 35.CN Declaration DENIED, except as to about the sale of OnlineNIC in 2007 the dollar figure listed (Entire Document) in Exhibit C at 35CN017283. Ex. H to Kronenberger Decl. – OnlineNIC Defendants’ DENIED. OnlineNIC Spreadsheet Records Provided to ICANN Declaration defendants do not (Entire Document) object to unsealing. Declaration of Carrie Yu in Support of 35.CN Declaration DENIED. Opposition (“Yu Decl.”) at 1:6–13; 1:14–17; 1:19–21; 1:23–25; 1:26–27; 2:4–5; 2:6–7; 2:8–9; 2:10–12; 2:13–16; 2:21–22 Yu Decl. at 2:17–20 Plaintiffs’ Statement DENIED. Plaintiffs do not object. Document or Portion of Document Evidence Offered in Order Sought to Be Sealed Support of Sealing Declaration of Zhang Weiwei in Support 35.CN Declaration DENIED. of Opposition at 1:6–8; 1:9–11; 1:12–18; 1:20–21 Plaintiffs’ Reply and Related Documents: Document Evidence Offered in Support of Sealing Order Reply Memorandum of Points Dkt. No. 328 (35.CN Declaration) DENIED, except as to and Authorities in Support of the dollar figures listed Motion to Strike Defendant’s in the Reply at 6:2, 9:6. Answer and for Entry of Default Against Defendant 35.CN (“Reply”) at Page 3, Lines 4-5;6 4:26-27; 5:20-21; 5:26-27; 6:2-5; 6:18-20; 6:22; 6:26-28; 7:7-8; 7:21-23; 7:25-26; 8:3-5; 8:8-10; 8:21-22; 8:26-27; 9:2-4; 9:6-7; 10:18-20; 12:17-20; 12:26; 13:2; 13:5-6; 14:11; 14:24 Document Evidence Offered in Support of Order Sealing Reply at 1:13-14; 1:16-17; 3:4-7; Dkt. No. 334 (OnlineNIC DENIED, except as to 3:22; 3:27-28; 4:12-13; 4:16; Defendants’ Declaration) the references to the 4:26-27; 5:5-6; 5:7-8; 5:18-19; dollar figures and 5:22-6:2; 6:5-7; 6:10-11; 7:3-5; references to ID Shield 7:12-19; 8:1-2; 8:6-7; 8:11-17; listed in the Reply at 3:6, 8:20-21; 8:25-28; 9:1-5; 9:8-10; 4:12-13, 5:23, 8 n.14 9:17-22; 10:4-5; 10:15-17; 11:1; (approx. lines 26-27), 13:4-5; 13:7-8 9:17-20, 10:5. Reply at 7:5-7; 7:16; 7:25; Dkt. No. 326 (ICANN GRANTED. 10:21-22; 13:3-4 Declaration) Supplemental Declaration of 35.CN Declaration DENIED, except as to Howard A. Kroll in Support of the dollar figure listed in Motion to Strike Defendant’s the Sup. Kroll Answer and for Entry of Default Declaration at 3:21. Against Defendant 35.CN (“Sup. Kroll Declaration”) at 3:3-5; 3:12-19; 3:21-23; 3:25-28 Sup. Kroll Declaration at 2:9-14; OnlineNIC Defendants’ DENIED. OnlineNIC 2:16-22; 2:24-3:2; 3:6-10 Declaration defendants do not object to unsealing. Exhibit 1 to the Sup. Kroll OnlineNIC Defendants’ DENIED. OnlineNIC Declaration Declaration defendants do not object to unsealing. Exhibit 2 to the Sup. Kroll OnlineNIC Defendants’ DENIED, except as to Declaration Declaration the employee names. Document Evidence Offered in Support of Order Sealing Exhibit 3 to the Sup. Kroll OnlineNIC Defendants’ GRANTED. Declaration Declaration Exhibit 4 to the Sup. Kroll OnlineNIC Defendants’ DENIED, except as to Declaration Declaration the employee names, except that the names Wang Minghe, Yu Hongxia, and Chen Lili shall not be sealed. Exhibit 5 to the Sup. Kroll 35.CN Declaration DENIED. OnlineNIC Declaration defendants do not object to unsealing. Exhibit 6 to the Sup. Kroll OnlineNIC Defendants’ DENIED. OnlineNIC Declaration Declaration defendants do not object to unsealing. Exhibit 7 to the Sup. Kroll OnlineNIC Defendants’ DENIED. OnlineNIC Declaration Declaration defendants do not object to unsealing.

35.CN’s Sur-Reply and Related Documents: Document Evidence Offered in Support of Order Sealing Sur-Reply Memorandum at 1:10; 35.CN Declaration DENIED, except as to 1:15; 2:4-8; 2:13-15; 2:18; 3:5-6; the dollar figures listed 3:24-26; 4:11-12; 4:14-15; 5:25; in Sur-Reply at 2:4, 2:18. 6:1-4; 6:14; 6:27; 7:1; 9:19 Document Evidence Offered in Support of Order Sealing Sur-Reply Memorandum at 1:10- Designated by OnlineNIC DENIED, except as to 11; 1:26-27; 2:1; 2:19; 2:25; defendants the dollar figures listed 3:17-21; 4:4-5; 4:19-22; 4:24-25; in Sur-Reply at 1:26, 6:8; 6:10-11; 6:16-17; 6:22-24; 2:19, 2:25, 6:9. 9:17-18 Declaration of K. Kronenberger 35.CN Declaration DENIED. ISO Sur-Reply (“Kronenberger Decl.”) at 1:14 Kronenberger Decl. at 1:18 Designated by OnlineNIC GRANTED. defendants Exhibit A to Kronenberger Decl. 35.CN Declaration DENIED. (summary chart with financial and employment data), Portions of 2:B; portions of 2:C; portions of 3:A; portions of 3:B; portions of 3:C; portions of 5:B; portions of 6:B; portions of 7:B; portions of 8:B; portions of 9:B; portions of 9:C Document Evidence Offered in Support of Order Sealing Exhibit B to Kronenberger Decl. Designated by OnlineNIC DENIED, except as to (summary spreadsheet with defendants the names of rank-and- financial data), 2:A; 2:B; 4:A; file employees and 4:B; 5:A; 5:B; 6:A; 6:B; 7:A; 7:B; dollar figures listed in 8:A; 8:B; 9:A; 9:B; 10:A; 10:B; Columns A and B, 11:A; 11:B; 12:A; 12:B; 13:A; respectively; Mr. Gong’s 13:B and Mr. Liu’s names shall not be sealed. Exhibit B to Kronenberger Decl. 35.CN Declaration DENIED, except as to (summary spreadsheet with the dollar figures listed financial data), 1:A; 1:B; 3:A; in Exhibit B at 1:B, 3:B. 3:B Declaration of Yu Hongxia ISO 35.CN Declaration DENIED, except as to Sur-Reply (“Yu Decl.”), 1:6-7; the dollar figures listed 1:9-11 in Yu Decl. at 1:7, 1:10. Yu Decl., 1:8-9; 1:14-27; 2:1-9 Designated by OnlineNIC DENIED, except as to defendants the dollar figures listed in Yu Decl. at 1:8-9. Exhibit A to Yu Decl. Designated by OnlineNIC DENIED, except as to (employee’s financial record) defendants the dollar figures. Exhibit B to Yu Decl. (deposition Designated by OnlineNIC DENIED. transcript) defendants Declaration of Z. Weiwei ISO 35.CN Declaration DENIED. Sur-Reply (“Weiwei Decl.”), 1:6- 10 Plaintiffs’ Objections to Sur-Reply Evidence and Related Documents: Evidence Offered in Support of Document Order Sealing Plaintiffs’ Corrected Dkt. No. 344 (35.CN Declaration) DENIED, except as to the Objections to Sur-Reply dollar figures listed in Evidence at Page 1, Lines Plaintiffs’ Corrected 24-25; 2:12-13; 2:16; 3:14- Objections to Sur-Reply 15; 3:20; 4:2-4; 4:11-12; Evidence at 1 n.1 (approx. 5:1; 5:3; 5:6-7; 5:15; lines 24-25). 5:16-17; 5:28 Plaintiffs’ Corrected Designated by OnlineNIC DENIED, except as to the Objections to Sur-Reply defendants dollar figures listed in Evidence at 1:23-25; 2:9- Plaintiffs’ Corrected 10; 2:22-23; 2:24-25; 2:28; Objections to Sur-Reply 3:2-3; 3:4; 3:10-11; 3:14- Evidence at 1 n.1 (approx. 15; 3:17-18; 3:20; 4:2-4; lines 24-25). 4:11-12; 4:16-17; 4:20; 4:22; 5:1; 5:6-7; 5:20; 5:21-22; 5:28 Plaintiffs’ Corrected Designated by ICANN DENIED. No supporting Objections to Sur-Reply declaration filed. Evidence at 4:26

CONCLUSION No later than December 1, 2023, plaintiffs and 35.CN shall re-file the motion to strike, opposition, reply, sur-reply, and objections to sur-reply evidence, along with the associated declarations and exhibits, on the public docket, sealing only those materials for which the Court has granted the sealing orders above. The parties may find it helpful to meet and confer about the re- 1 filing of these more narrowly redacted documents. 2 4 Dated: November 8, 2023 ( WU tee 5 SUSAN ILLSTON 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28