UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION FACTORY DIRECT ) WHOLESALE, LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) OFFICE KICK, INC., and ) CKNAPP SALES, INC. ) ) Defendants. ) CV421-368
OFFICE KICK, INC., and ) CKNAPP SALES, INC., ) ) Counterclaim Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) FACTORY DIRECT ) WHOLESALE, LLC, DEFU USA, ) LLC, and HANPING LIU, ) ) Counterclaim Defendants. )
ORDER The parties jointly move to file certain exhibits connected to their respective motions to exclude expert opinions and motions for summary judgment under seal. Doc. 175. In particular, Plaintiff Factory Direct Wholesale, along with its counterclaim co-defendants Defu USA, LLC and Hanping Liu (collectively “FDW”), and Defendants Office Kick, Inc. and CKNAPP Sales, Inc. (collectively “OKI”) seek to seal the following exhibits:
e February 20, 2024 Expert Report of Lisa Miller, doc. 145-2 (“Exhibit B” to OKI’s Motion to Strike Certain Opinions, doc. 145)
e March 11, 2024 Expert Report of Lisa Miller, doc. 145-4 (“Exhibit D” to OKI’s Motion to Strike Certain Opinions, doc. 145)
e Transcript of Deposition of Expert Mark Benden, doc. 146-3 (“Exhibit 3” of FDW’s Motion to Exclude Certain Expert Opinions, doc. 146) & doc. 149-18 (“Exhibit L” of FDW’s Motion for Summary Judgment, doc. 149)
e February 20, 2024 Expert Report of David R. Duski, doc. 146-4 (“Exhibit 4” to FDW’s Motion to Exclude Certain Expert Opinions, doc. 146) & doc. 149-40 (“Exhibit AA” to FDW’s Motion for Summary Judgment, doc. 149)
e March 25, 2025 Expert Report of David R. Duski, doc. 158-1 (“Exhibit 10” to FDW’s Opposition to OKI’s Motion to Strike Certain Opinions, doc. 158)
e Transcript of Deposition of Expert David R. Duski, doc. 146-5 (“Exhibit 5” of FDW’s Motion to Exclude Certain Expert Opinions, doc. 146)
e Transcript of Deposition of Chance Knapp, doc. 149-38 (“Exhibit Y” of FDW’s Motion for Summary Judgment, doc. 149)
e FDW’s Financial Spreadsheets, doc. 162-12 (“Exhibit L” to OKT’s Opposition to FDW’s Motion for Summary Judgment, doc. 162)
e Transcript of Deposition of Hanping Liu, doc. 162-13 (“Exhibit M”
to OKI’s Opposition to FDW’s Motion for Summary Judgment, doc. 162) See generally doc. 175-1. The Eleventh Circuit has explained that “[t]he operations of the
courts and the judicial conduct of judges are matters of utmost public
concern... and the common-law right of access to judicial proceedings,
an essential component of our system of justice, is instrumental in securing the integrity of the process.” Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th Cir. 2007) Gnternal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Landmark Comme'ns, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829, 839 (1978), and Chi. Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1804, 1311
(11th Cir. 2001)). “[T]he common-law right of access includes the right to inspect and copy public records and documents.” Chi. Tribune Co., 263
F.3d at 1311 (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) (referencing specifically the right to inspect and copy “judicial records and documents.”)). “Material filed in connection with any
substantive pretrial motion, unrelated to discovery, is subject to the common law right of access.” Romero, 480 F.3d at 1245. The Eleventh
Circuit reaffirmed this standard, finding that the public right of access is presumed for “judicial records,” which include “documents filed with pretrial motions that require judicial resolution of the merits of an
action.” Callahan v. United Network for Organ Sharing, 17 F.4th 1356, 1363 (11th Cir. 2021) (internal citation and quotations omitted). A party can overcome the common-law right of access by a showing
of good cause. Callahan, 17 F.4th at 1363. A good cause determination “requires balancing the asserted right of access against the other party’s interest in keeping the information confidential.” Romero, 480 F.3d at
1246 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). In weighing these competing interests, the Court considers “a number of important questions,” which the Eleventh Circuit discussed in Callahan: [W]hether allowing access would impair court functions or harm legitimate privacy interests, the degree of and likelihood of injury if made public, the reliability of the information, whether the information concerns public officials or public concerns, and the availability of a less onerous alternative to sealing the documents. Concerns about trade secrets or other proprietary information, for example, can overcome the public interest in access to judicial documents. Indeed, a court should consider whether the records are sought for such illegitimate purposes as to promote public scandal or gain unfair commercial advantage.
Callahan, 17 F.4th at 1363 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The decision of whether good cause exists rests with the sound discretion of the district court, is based on the “nature and character of the information in question,” and “should be informed by a sensitive appreciation of the circumstances that led to the production of the particular document in question.” Chi. Tribune Co., 263 F.3d at 1311 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 603) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted), 1315. The Court will conduct a good cause analysis for each document the parties seek to seal. 1. February 20, 2024 Expert Report of Lisa Miller Both parties move to seal the February 20, 2024 Expert Report of Lisa Miller, doc. 145-2. See doc. 175-1 at 6-7, 18. Miller’s February 20, 2024 report contains sensitive financial and business information, including but not limited to sales figures, profit and loss statements, and
projected growth rates. The parties argue that exposing this information would harm their business operations and give their competitors an advantage. See id. at 6, 18. They propose redacting the report to hide
this specific information. See doc. 175-2 (Proposed Redacted Version of the February 20, 2024 Expert Report of Lisa Miller). Documents that
contain detailed information about a company’s finances or business structure are often good candidates for sealing. See, e.g., USI Insur. Servs., LLC v. Tillman, 2024 WL 812021, at *2-*3 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 27, 2024)
(sealing “confidential and sensitive business information” concerning the dollar amount of a company’s new business and their client’s identities); Holiday Hosp. Franchising, LLC v. J&W Lodging, LLC, 2019 WL
3334614, at *10-*11 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 7, 2019) (sealing documents that showed detailed revenue data and royalties, fees, and credits); see generally My 24Hour News.com, Inc. v. AT&T Corp., 2019 WL 3521951,
at *9 n.7 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 10, 2019) (sealing materials “which contain confidential and proprietary business information of a commercially- sensitive nature”). Accordingly, the parties have shown good cause to seal Lisa Miller’s February 20, 2024 Expert Report. See Callahan, 17 F.4th at 1363. The
parties’ motion to seal this exhibit is GRANTED. Doc. 175, in part. The Clerk is DIRECTED to maintain the February 20, 2024 Expert Report of Lisa Miller, doc. 145-2, UNDER SEAL for ten years. The Clerk is also
DIRECTED to docket the Proposed Redacted Version of the February 20, 2024 Expert Report of Lisa Miller, doc. 175-2, as an exhibit to OKI’s
Motion to Strike Certain Expert Opinions, doc. 145. 2. March 11, 2024 Expert Report of Lisa Miller Both parties move to seal the March 11, 2024 Expert Report of Lisa
Miller, doc. 145-4. See doc. 175-1 at 7-8, 18. Miller’s March 11, 2024 report contains sensitive financial and business information, including but not limited to average sales prices, net profits, and royalty rates. The
parties argue that exposing this information would harm their business operations and give their competitors an advantage. See id. at 7, 18. They propose redacting the report to hide this specific information. See
doc. 175-3 (Proposed Redacted Version of the March 11, 2024 Expert Report of Lisa Miller). Documents that contain detailed information about a company’s finances or business structure are often good candidates for sealing. See e.g., USI Insur. Servs., LLC, 2024 WL 812021, at *2-*3 (sealing “confidential and sensitive business information”
concerning the dollar amount of a company’s new business and their client’s identities); Holiday Hosp. Franchising, LLC, 2019 WL 3334614, at *10-*11 (sealing documents that showed detailed revenue data and
royalties, fees, and credits); see generally My 24Hour News.com, Inc., 2019 WL 3521951, at *9 n.7 (sealing materials “which contain
confidential and proprietary business information of a commercially- sensitive nature”). Accordingly, the parties have shown good cause to seal Lisa Miller’s
March 11, 2024 Expert Report. See Callahan, 17 F.4th at 1363. The parties’ motion to seal this exhibit is GRANTED. Doc. 175, in part. The Clerk is DIRECTED to maintain the March 11, 2024 Expert Report of
Lisa Miller, doc. 145-4, UNDER SEAL for ten years. The Clerk is also DIRECTED to docket the Proposed Redacted Version of the March 11, 2024 Expert Report of Lisa Miller, doc. 175-3, as an exhibit to OKI’s
Motion to Strike Certain Expert Opinions, doc. 145. 3. Transcript of Deposition of Expert Mark Benden OKI moves to seal the transcript of Mark Benden’s deposition, docs.
146-3 & 149-18. See doc. 175-1 at 14, 16. FDW submitted an excerpt of Benden’s deposition in support of its Motion to Exclude Certain Expert Opinions, doc. 146, and the full transcript of his deposition in support of
its Motion for Summary Judgment, doc. 149. FDW states that Benden’s deposition does not contain any of its confidential information, and it
therefore defers to OKI. Doc. 175-1 at 11. OKI asserts that the deposition transcript includes “some discussion of highly confidential and competitively sensitive financial information,” namely sales figures, and
that exposing this information would harm OKI’s business operations and give their competitors an advantage. Id. at 14. Documents that contain detailed information about a company’s finances or business
structure are often good candidates for sealing. See e.g., USI Insur. Servs., LLC, 2024 WL 812021, at *2-*3 (sealing “confidential and sensitive business information” concerning the dollar amount of a
company’s new business and their client’s identities); Holiday Hosp. Franchising, LLC, 2019 WL 3334614, at *10-*11 (sealing documents that showed detailed revenue data and royalties, fees, and credits); see generally My 24Hour News.com, Inc., 2019 WL 3521951, at *9 n.7 (sealing materials “which contain confidential and proprietary business
information of a commercially-sensitive nature”). Accordingly, OKI has shown good cause to seal the transcript of Mark Benden’s deposition. See Callahan, 17 F.4th at 1363. The motion
to seal these exhibits is GRANTED. Doc. 175, in part. The Clerk is DIRECTED to maintain the excerpt and full transcript of Mark
Benden’s deposition, docs. 146-3 & 149-18, UNDER SEAL for ten years. The Clerk is DIRECTED to docket the proposed redacted version of the excerpt of Benden’s deposition, doc. 175-5, as an exhibit to FDW’s Motion
to Exclude Certain Expert Opinions, doc. 146. As for the full transcript filed as an Exhibit to FDW’s Motion for Summary Judgment, FDW asked OKI–the party asserting the
confidentiality interest–to redact a complete version of the transcript of Benden’s deposition. See doc. 175-1 at 11-12. OKI asserts that redacting the full transcript of the deposition is unnecessary, and instead asks the
Court to allow OKI to substitute the full deposition for relevant excerpts of the deposition. Id. at 14-15. This is insufficient. FDW filed the entire deposition transcript in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment; it must be allowed to build its record for summary judgment as it sees fit.
OKI ultimately submitted a proposed redacted version of the full transcript to the Court, despite its apparent reluctance to do so. The Clerk is DIRECTED to docket the full redacted transcript of Mark
Benden’s deposition as an exhibit to FDW’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Doc. 149.
4. February 20, 2024 Expert Report of David R. Duski Both parties move to seal David R. Duskis’ February 20, 2024 Expert Report. Doc. 175-1 at 3-4, 16-17. Duski’s February 20, 2024
report contains sensitive financial and business information, including but not limited to FDW’s sales figures, estimated sales figures, and royalty information. The report also includes a detailed analysis of
various OKI licensing agreements and business deals. The parties argue that exposing this information would harm their business operations and give their competitors an advantage. See id. They propose redacting the
report to hide this specific information. See doc. 175-6 (Proposed Redacted Version of the February 20, 2024 Expert Report of David R. Duski). Documents that contain detailed information about a company’s finances or business structure are often good candidates for sealing. See e.g., USI Insur. Servs., LLC, 2024 WL 812021, at *2-*3 (sealing
“confidential and sensitive business information” concerning the dollar amount of a company’s new business and their client’s identities); Holiday Hosp. Franchising, LLC, 2019 WL 3334614, at *10-*11 (sealing
documents that showed detailed revenue data and royalties, fees, and credits); see generally My 24Hour News.com, Inc., 2019 WL 3521951, at
*9 n.7 (sealing materials “which contain confidential and proprietary business information of a commercially-sensitive nature”). Accordingly, the parties have shown good cause to seal David
Duski’s February 20, 2024 Expert Report. See Callahan, 17 F.4th at 1363. The parties’ motion to seal this exhibit is GRANTED. Doc. 175, in part. The Clerk is DIRECTED to maintain the February 20, 2024
Expert Report of David R. Duski, docs. 146-4 & 149-40, UNDER SEAL for ten years. The Clerk is also DIRECTED to docket the Proposed Redacted Version of the February 20, 2024 Expert Report of David R.
Duski, doc. 175-6, as an exhibit to FDW’s Motion to Exclude Certain Expert Opinions, doc. 146, and FDW’s Motion for Summary Judgment, doc. 149.
5. March 25, 2025 Expert Report of David R. Duski Both parties move to seal David. R. Duski’s March 25, 2024 Expert Report. Doc. 175-1 at 4-5, 17. Duski’s March 25, 2024 report contains
sensitive financial and business information, including but not limited to FDW’s average selling prices, royalty rates, and revenue data. The report
also includes a detailed analysis of various OKI licensing agreements and business deals. The parties argue that exposing this information would harm their business operations and give their competitors an advantage.
See id. They propose redacting the report to hide this specific information. See doc. 175-10 (Proposed Redacted Version of the March 25, 2024 Expert Report of David R. Duski). Documents that contain
detailed information about a company’s finances or business structure are often good candidates for sealing. See e.g., USI Insur. Servs., LLC, 2024 WL 812021, at *2-*3 (sealing “confidential and sensitive business
information” concerning the dollar amount of a company’s new business and their client’s identities); Holiday Hosp. Franchising, LLC, 2019 WL 3334614, at *10-*11 (sealing documents that showed detailed revenue data and royalties, fees, and credits); see generally My 24Hour News.com, Inc., 2019 WL 3521951, at *9 n.7 (sealing materials “which contain
confidential and proprietary business information of a commercially- sensitive nature”). Accordingly, the parties have shown good cause to seal David
Duski’s March 25, 2024 Expert Report. See Callahan, 17 F.4th at 1363. The parties’ motion to seal this exhibit is GRANTED. Doc. 175, in part.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to maintain the March 25, 2024 Expert Report of David R. Duski, doc. 158-1, UNDER SEAL for ten years. The Clerk is also DIRECTED to docket the Proposed Redacted Version of the
March 25, 2024 Expert Report of David R. Duski, doc. 175-10, as an exhibit to FDW’s Brief in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Strike Certain Opinions, doc. 158.
6. Transcript of Deposition of Expert David R. Duski OKI moves to seal the transcript of David R. Duski’s deposition. See doc. 175-1 at 14-15. FDW filed the full transcript of Duski’s deposition in
support of its Motion to Exclude Certain Expert Opinions, doc. 146, and indicates that the deposition transcript does not include any of its confidential information, doc. 175-1 at 11-12. OKI asserts the deposition includes detailed discussions of various confidential licensing agreements and business deals. Id. at 13. Documents that contain
detailed information about a company’s finances or business structure are often good candidates for sealing. See e.g., USI Insur. Servs., LLC, 2024 WL 812021, at *2-*3 (sealing “confidential and sensitive business
information” concerning the dollar amount of a company’s new business and their client’s identities); see also My 24Hour News.com, Inc., 2019
WL 3521951, at *9 n.7 (sealing materials “which contain confidential and proprietary business information of a commercially-sensitive nature”). Accordingly, OKI has shown good cause to seal the transcript of
David R. Duski’s deposition. See Callahan, 17 F.4th at 1363. The motion to seal this exhibit is GRANTED. Doc. 175, in part. The Clerk is DIRECTED to maintain the transcript of David Duski’s deposition, doc.
146-5, UNDER SEAL for ten years. FDW asked OKI–the party asserting the confidentiality interest–to redact a complete version of the transcript of Duski’s deposition. See doc.
175-1 at 11-12. OKI asserts that redacting the full transcript of the deposition is unnecessary, and instead asks the Court to allow OKI to substitute the full deposition for relevant excerpts of the deposition. Id. at 13-14. This is insufficient. FDW filed the entire deposition transcript in support of its Motion to Exclude Certain Expert Opinions; it must be
allowed to build its record for the Court as it sees fit. OKI ultimately submitted a proposed redacted version of the full transcript to the Court, despite its apparent reluctance to do so. The
Clerk is DIRECTED to docket the full redacted transcript of David. R. Duski’s deposition as an exhibit to FDW’s Motion to Exclude Certain
Expert Opinions. Doc. 146. 7. Transcript of Deposition of Chance Knapp OKI moves to seal the transcript of Chance Knapp’s deposition, doc.
149-38. See doc. 175-1 at 15. FDW filed the full transcript of Knapp’s deposition in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, doc. 149, and indicates that the deposition transcript does not include any of its
confidential information, doc. 175-1 at 11-12. OKI asserts the deposition includes, among other things, discussions about its business strategies and confidential licensing agreements, and that disclosing this
information would harm OKI’s business operations and give its competitors an advantage. Id. at 15. Documents that contain detailed information about a company’s finances or business structure are often good candidates for sealing. See e.g., USI Insur. Servs., LLC, 2024 WL 812021, at *2-*3 (sealing “confidential and sensitive business
information” concerning the dollar amount of a company’s new business and their client’s identities); see also My 24Hour News.com, Inc., 2019 WL 3521951, at *9 n.7 (sealing materials “which contain confidential and
proprietary business information of a commercially-sensitive nature”). Accordingly, OKI has shown good cause to seal the transcript of
Chance Knapp’s deposition. See Callahan, 17 F.4th at 1363. The motion to seal this exhibit is GRANTED. Doc. 175, in part. The Clerk is DIRECTED to maintain the transcript of Chance Knapp’s deposition,
doc. 149-38, UNDER SEAL for ten years. FDW asked OKI–the party asserting the confidentiality interest–to redact a complete version of the transcript of Knapp’s deposition. See
doc. 175-1 at 11-12. OKI asserts that redacting the full transcript of the deposition is unnecessary, and instead asks the Court to allow OKI to substitute the full deposition for relevant excerpts of the deposition. Id.
at 15. This is insufficient. FDW filed the entire deposition transcript in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment; it must be allowed to build its record for summary judgment as it sees fit. OKI ultimately submitted a proposed redacted version of the full transcript to the Court, despite its apparent reluctance to do so. The
Clerk is DIRECTED to docket the full redacted transcript of Chance Knapp’s deposition as an exhibit to FDW’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Doc. 149.
8. FDW’s Financial Spreadsheets FDW moves to seal its financial spreadsheets in their entirety, doc.
162-12. Doc. 175-1 at 8. OKI does not indicate any opposition to sealing the spreadsheets. See generally id. FDW seeks to file the spreadsheets under seal because “the entire document is comprised of FDW’s total unit
sales and prices for various ASINs [sold] over several individual days” and disclosing this information would harm FDW’s business operations and give its competitors an advantage. Id. at 8. Documents that contain
detailed information about a company’s finances or business structure are often good candidates for sealing. See e.g., USI Insur. Servs., LLC, 2024 WL 812021, at *2-*3 (sealing “confidential and sensitive business
information” concerning the dollar amount of a company’s new business and their client’s identities); Holiday Hosp. Franchising, LLC, 2019 WL 3334614, at *10-*11 (sealing documents that showed detailed revenue data and royalties, fees, and credits); see generally My 24Hour News.com, Inc., 2019 WL 3521951, at *9 n.7 (sealing materials “which contain
confidential and proprietary business information of a commercially- sensitive nature”). Accordingly, FDW has shown good cause to seal FDW’s Financial
Spreadsheet. See Callahan, 17 F.4th at 1363. The parties’ motion to seal this exhibit is GRANTED. Doc. 175, in part. The Clerk is DIRECTED
to maintain FDW’s Financial Spreadsheets, doc. 162-12, UNDER SEAL for ten years. 9. Transcript of Deposition of Hanping Liu
FDW moves to seal the transcript of Hanping Liu’s deposition, doc. 162-13. See doc. 175-1 at 9-10. OKI does not indicate any opposition to sealing the transcript. See generally id. FDW asserts that its sales
history, revenue, salaries, and sales strategies and projections were discussed during the deposition, and that publicly disclosing this information would harm its business operations and give its competitors
an advantage. Id. at 9. FDW proposes redacting the transcript to avoid disclosing this information. See doc. 175-11 (Proposed Redacted Version of the Transcript of the Deposition of Hanping Liu). Documents that contain detailed information about a company’s finances or business structure are often good candidates for sealing. See e.g., USI Insur.
Servs., LLC, 2024 WL 812021, at *2-*3 (sealing “confidential and sensitive business information” concerning the dollar amount of a company’s new business and their client’s identities); Holiday Hosp.
Franchising, LLC, 2019 WL 3334614, at *10-*11 (sealing documents that showed detailed revenue data and royalties, fees, and credits); see
generally My 24Hour News.com, Inc., 2019 WL 3521951, at *9 n.7 (sealing materials “which contain confidential and proprietary business information of a commercially-sensitive nature”).
Accordingly, FDW has shown good cause to seal Hanping Liu’s deposition. See Callahan, 17 F.4th at 1363. The parties’ motion to seal this exhibit is GRANTED. Doc. 175, in part. The Clerk is DIRECTED
to maintain the transcript of Hanping Liu’s deposition, doc. 162-13, UNDER SEAL for ten years. The Clerk is also DIRECTED to docket the Proposed Redacted Version of the Transcript of the Deposition of
Hanping Liu, doc. 175-11, as an exhibit to OKI’s Opposition to FDW’s Motion for Summary Judgment, doc. 162. Because the parties have shown good cause to seal docs. 145-2, 145- 4, 146-3, 146-4, 146-5, 149-18, 149-38, 149-40, 158-1, 162-12, & 162-18, their Joint Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal is GRANTED. Doc. 175. In a previous Order, the Court advised the parties that if they failed
to explicitly move to seal any exhibits that had been provisionally filed under seal, the Court would place those exhibits on the docket. See doc. 169 at 6. Though initially filed under seal, the parties either explicitly withdrew their request to seal or never moved to seal the following exhibits:
e February 20, 2024 Expert Report of Mark Benden, doc. 149-5 (“Exhibit D” to FDW’s Motion for Summary Judgment, doc. 149) & doc. 162-5 (“Exhibit E” to OKI’s Opposition to FDW’s Motion for Summary Judgment, doc. 162)
e March 10, 2024! Expert Report of Mark Benden, doc. 145-9 (“Exhibit I” of OKI’s Motion to Strike Certain Opinions); doc. 146- 12 (“Exhibit 1” of FDW’s Motion to Exclude Certain Expert
1 Benden’s “second” expert report is dated March 10, 2024, not March 11, 2024. See doc. 175-4 at 30. 2 While the parties filed a proposed redacted version of doc. 146-1, they did not move to seal it. See doc. 175-4 (Proposed Redacted Version of Benden’s March 10, 2024 Report Excerpt); see also doc. 175-1 at 11 (FDW deferring to OKI on whether to seal the exhibit); id. at 17 (OKI indicating that it was willing to withdraw its designation 21
Opinions, doc. 146); doc. 149-33 (“Exhibit T’ of FDW’s Motion for Summary Judgment, doc. 149); & doc. 162-14 “Exhibit N” to OKI’s Opposition to FDW’s Motion for Summary Judgment, doc. 162)
e March 25, 2024 Expert Report of Mark Benden, doc. 162-7 (“Exhibit G’ to OKI’s Opposition to FDW’s Motion for Summary Judgment, doc. 162)
e FDW’s Motion to Exclude Certain Expert Opinions, doc. 146
e FDW’s’ Corrected Third Amended Responses to OKI’s Interrogatories Nos. 3, 7, 10, 11, and 18, doc. 149-37 (“Exhibit X” to FDW’s Motion for Summary Judgment, doc. 149)
e FDW’s Invalidity Contentions, doc. 162-6 (“Exhibit F” to OKI’s Opposition to FDW’s Motion for Summary Judgment, doc. 162)
e February 20, 2024 Expert Report of Craig R. Forest, doc. 162-10 (“Exhibit J” to OKI’s Opposition to FDW’s Motion for Summary Judgment, doc. 162)
of confidentiality as to this exhibit and not moving to seal it). 22
e March 25, 2024 Expert Report of Craig R. Forest, doc. 162-8 (“Exhibit H” to OKI’s Opposition to FDW’s Motion for Summary Judgment, doc. 162)
e Amazon Production Photographs, doc. 162-11 (“Exhibit K” to OKT’s Opposition to FDW’s Motion for Summary Judgment, doc. 162) Because the parties have not moved to seal these documents, they will be placed on the public docket. See doc. 169 at 6. Accordingly, the Clerk is DIRECTED to docket the above documents—docs. 145-9, 146, 146-1, 149-5, 149-33, 149-37, 162-5, 162-6, 162-7, 162-8, 162-10, 162-11, & 162-14—as attachments to their respective filings. SO ORDERED, this 13th day of August, 2024.
Cheighend flag CHRISTOPHER L. RAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA