In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation Case No. 21-md-02981-JD
ORDER RE MOTION TO STAY AND RENEWED APPLICATION TO SEAL
In a prior order, the Court denied the Google defendants’ request to seal portions of the four complaints, which would have limited the public’s right of access to the court proceedings in this high-profile multidistrict antitrust litigation. Dkt. No. 79. The reasons for the denial were straightforward. “[J]udicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by default.” Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted); see also Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (when considering a request to seal, “we start with a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.”) (quotation omitted). As the party seeking to seal the complaints, Google had “the burden of overcoming this strong presumption by meeting the ‘compelling reasons’ standard.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)); see also Center for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1098 (our precedent presumes that the “‘compelling reasons’ standard applies to most judicial records.”) (quoting Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2009)) (emphasis added in Center for Auto Safety). To seal portions of the complaints -- the documents that are the heart of this, and every, lawsuit -- Google was required to “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (cleaned up); see also Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678-79 (same); Johnstech Int’l Corp. v. JF Microtechnology SDN BHD, No. 14-cv-02864-JD, 2016 WL 4091388, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2016) (party must provide “specific, individualized reasons for the sealing”). Conclusory statements by a party about potential harm from public disclosure, or mere hypothesis or conjecture, will not do. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179; Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995). The fact that the parties may have designated a document as confidential under a stipulated protective order is also not enough to justify sealing. “Such blanket orders” are inherently overbroad and do not provide the “particularized showing” required to seal any individual court record. See San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. United States District Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999). In addition, different interests are at stake with the right of access to court records than with the production of documents during discovery. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. Google had an ample opportunity to demonstrate a compelling reason for sealing, and squandered it. The governing standards summarized here have been well-established for many years, and our District’s local rules clearly state the procedures for Google to follow in making its case. See Civil L.R. 79-5. Even so, Google presented nothing but generic and boilerplate statements for its sealing requests. It gestured at its internal confidentiality practices as a ground for sealing, which was nothing more than an ipse dixit rationale. See Dkt. No. 79 at 2. It mentioned the protective orders entered in the litigation as a basis, but that carried little weight. See id and supra. The “factual showing” it proffered was a declaration by a “Senior Legal Project Manager” at Google stating that the disclosure of “non-public information” could, “[i]f revealed to competitors and potential business counterparties, . . . disadvantage Google in marketing and in negotiations.” Dkt. No. 74-1. This was literally all Google said with respect to meeting the requirement of a specific factual demonstration of a compelling reason, and it repeated the same statement over 140 times in the declaration, without any further commentary or evidence. Id. Overall, Google made no showing whatsoever that might have favored keeping portions of the complaints secret, and its “failure to meet that burden means that the default posture of public Consequently, Google’s sealing requests were denied. Dkt. No. 79. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f), the Court directed the plaintiff groups to file unredacted versions of their respective complaints on ECF within 7 days of the order, namely by August 25, 2021. Id. at 3. Epic beat that deadline and filed its unredacted complaint on August 19, 2021. Dkt. Nos. 81, 82. The other three plaintiff groups apparently agreed to hold off on filing their unredacted complaints at Google’s request. Dkt. No. 84-1 ¶¶ 8-11. On August 20, 2021, Google filed an “Emergency Motion to Stay the Court’s August 18, 2021 Order,” Dkt. No. 83, as well as a “Renewed Application to Seal,” Dkt. No. 85. Google’s request for a do-over is misdirected in several respects. To start, Google cannot credibly claim surprise or lack of a fair chance to address the sealing standards. The salient case law and local rules have been on the books for a good while, and Google is represented here by two top-tier law firms with ample resources to get a proper sealing request on file. In addition, the Court expressly cautioned at a status conference that any requests to keep complaint allegations sealed from the public would be closely scrutinized. See Dkt. No. 67 (“Google is advised that for any portions of the complaints for which Google requests sealing, it will need to make a persuasive showing that sealing is appropriate under the governing standards. Complaints are foundational case documents to which the public has a strong right of access, especially in a case such as this one.”). In these circumstances, Google’s plea for a break because this was the “first sealing exercise” in the litigation, Dkt. No. 85 at 2, is unpersuasive. So too for Google’s effort to pass the buck for its shortfall to the Court. Google hedged its original requests with the statement that “if the Court believes that Google should support its request with either a supplemental declaration or additional detail in support of its sealing request, Google can provide such additional support and requests leave to do so.” Dkt. No. 161 at 2; Dkt. No. 83-1 ¶ 3; Dkt. No. 84-1 ¶ 3. This fundamentally misunderstands federal motion practice. The Court does not review a party’s motion papers and offer coaching pointers for a second round of briefs. The burden is on the party to make its case in the first instance, as it sees fit. That is all the more true in the sealing context, where the “judge need not document compelling reasons to unseal; rather the proponent of sealing bears the burden with respect to sealing.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182. Google is also less than forthright in characterizing the present motion as a “renewed” application. There is no basis for that in the federal procedural rules. In effect, Google seeks reconsideration of the prior order without owning up to the standards that govern reconsideration, starting with the requirement that a party must request leave to file such a motion. See Civil L.R. 7-9(a) (“No party may notice a motion for reconsideration without first obtaining leave of Court to file the motion.”). Nor did Google make any effort to demonstrate the existence of new facts or law, or the other circumstances that might warrant reconsideration. See id. 7-9(b). Altogether, Google has not established any reason to disturb the Court’s prior order. Even so, purely in the interest of keeping this litigation on track, the Court has reviewed the “renewed application,” Dkt. No. 85, which is directed to the complaints other than Epic’s, which was more circumspect about Google’s information. The Court also reviewed the declaration of a Finance Director for Google, LLC, Dkt. No. 85-1. These filings are more detailed in describing the material Google is seeking to seal, and the reasons why Google believes each item should be sealed. Id. None of this is new information, and should have been presented in the original request. Most of the “renewed” sealing requests are still inappropriate. Google has met its burden only for a small subset of the sealing requests. The Court’s rulings are stated in the attached chart. See Ex. A. The Court granted sealing for specific deal terms that might be used against Google in other negotiations and deals. The Court declined to seal information outside this specific category of sensitive information because Google did not demonstrate a plausible risk to its business from publication. For example, Google did not present facts establishing that disclosure of profits and revenues from portions of its business would cause it commercial harm. Google may be uncomfortable that the public will see this data, but “a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citation omitted). 1 The Consumer Plaintiffs, Developer Plaintiffs, and Plaintiff States are directed to file 2 revised redacted versions of their complaints which comport with this order within 7 days from the 3 date of this order. Civil L.R. 79-5()(3). 4 This resolves Google’s renewed application to seal. Dkt. No. 85. Google’s motion for a 5 stay, Dkt. No. 83, and the stipulated request for an order shortening time for that motion, Dkt. 6 No. 8&4, are terminated. 8 Dated: August 25, 2021 9 10 JAME NATO Unitedfftates District Judge 12
15 16
= 17
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Exhibit A to Order re Motion to Stay and Renewed Application to Seal Document Information sought Google’s Proffered Ruling to be sealed Reason for Sealing STATE ATTORNEY GENERALS’ COMPLAINT Utah v. Paragraph 183, page Contains non-public Denied. Google LLC, 59, line 18 (between financial revenue and Case No. “made up” and “of revenue ratio 3:21-cv- overall” on line 19), information about 05227-JD, and line 19 (beginning individual Google ECF 1 (Ex. A after “totaled some”) business lines which, to Cramer to the end of the if revealed to Decl.) paragraph. competitors or counterparties, could cause competitive harm to Google, and which could also cause confusion for investors. (see Cramer Decl., ¶ 8). Utah v. Paragraph 186, page Contains non-public Denied. Google LLC, 60, line 14 (between information regarding Case No. “collected” and “in revenue and profit 3:21-cv- overall”), line 14 margins for individual 05227-JD, (between “booked” Google business lines ECF 1 (Ex. A and “in ‘Gross which, if revealed to to Cramer Profit’”), line 15 competitors or Decl.) (between “and” and counterparties, could “in ‘Operating cause competitive Income’”), and line 15 harm to Google, and (between “over” and which could also cause “that combines”). confusion for investors. (see Cramer Decl., ¶ 9). Utah v. Paragraph 111, page Contains non-public Granted in part. The Google LLC, 39, line 1 (beginning information regarding proposed language at lines Case No. after “stated that”) to confidential business 4-5 may be sealed. The 3:21-cv- the end of the sentence strategies with respect public release of these 05227-JD, on line 2 (ending to potential contractual specific proposed terms of ECF 1 (Ex. A before “One key”), counterparties and, in a contract could place to Cramer line 3 (beginning after particular, specific Google in a diminished Decl.) “was”) to the end of proposed terms of a bargaining position in the sentence on line 3 contract with a future negotiations with Document Information sought Google’s Proffered Ruling to be sealed Reason for Sealing (ending before “In business counterparty potential customers and response”), and line 4 which, if revealed to competitors, thereby (beginning after competitors or causing significant harm to “among other things, counterparties, could Google’s competitive to” to the end of the cause competitive standing. sentence on line 5, harm to Google. (see excluding “(emphasis Cramer Decl., ¶ 10). in original).” Utah v. Paragraph 129, page Contains non-public Denied. Google LLC, 43, line 20 (after information regarding Case No. “approximately”) to spend data for 3:21-cv- the end of the sentence individual Google 05227-JD, on line 21. business lines and ECF 1 (Ex. A initiatives which, if to Cramer revealed to Decl.) competitors or counterparties, could cause competitive harm to Google. (see Cramer Decl., ¶ 11). Utah v. Paragraph 132, page Contains non-public Denied. Google LLC, 44, line 22 (between information revealing Case No. “primarily” and “as a the counterparties to 3:21-cv- solution”). confidential 05227-JD, contractual ECF 1 (Ex. A arrangements with to Cramer Google which, if Decl.) revealed to competitors or counterparties, could cause competitive harm to both Google and the third parties. (see Cramer Decl., ¶ 12). Utah v. Paragraph 136, page Contains non-public Granted in part. The Google LLC, 46, line 16 (beginning information regarding proposed language at line Case No. after “would”) to line a confidential business 24 may be sealed because it 3:21-cv- 17 (ending before strategy and terms reveals a specific term 05227-JD, “At”), line 24 offered during proposed to a contractual Document Information sought Google’s Proffered Ruling to be sealed Reason for Sealing ECF 1 (Ex. A (beginning after “using negotiations with a counterparty, which could to Cramer a”) to line 25 (ending potential contractual cause significant harm to Decl.) before “(Google counterparty which, if Google’s competitive offered”), and line 25 revealed to standing. (beginning after competitors or “Samsung would”) to counterparties, could the end of the cause competitive paragraph on line 26. harm to Google. (see Cramer Decl., ¶ 13) Utah v. Paragraph 136, page Contains non-public Granted. The proposed Google LLC, 46, line 12 (between information regarding language may be sealed Case No. “up to” and “in a confidential business because it reveals a specific 3:21-cv- return”). strategy and terms term proposed to a 05227-JD, offered during contractual counterparty, ECF 1 (Ex. A negotiations with a which could cause to Cramer potential contractual significant harm to Decl.) counterparty which, if Google’s competitive revealed to standing. competitors or counterparties, could cause competitive harm to Google. (see Cramer Decl., ¶ 14). Utah v. Paragraph 137, page Contains non-public Granted. The proposed Google LLC, 47, line 15 (between information regarding language may be sealed Case No. “proposed the” and terms offered during because it reveals a specific 3:21-cv- “were too low”). negotiations with a term proposed to a 05227-JD, potential contractual contractual counterparty, ECF 1 (Ex. A counterparty which, if which could cause to Cramer revealed to significant harm to Decl.) competitors or Google’s competitive counterparties, could standing. cause competitive harm to both Google and the third party. (see Cramer Decl., ¶ 15). Document Information sought Google’s Proffered Ruling to be sealed Reason for Sealing Utah v. Paragraph 139, page Contains non-public Granted. The proposed Google LLC, 48, line 7 (beginning information regarding language may be sealed Case No. after “According to terms offered during because it reveals specific 3:21-cv- Google, the”) to line 9 negotiations with a terms proposed to a 05227-JD, at the end of the potential contractual contractual counterparty, ECF 1 (Ex. A sentence. counterparty which, if which could cause to Cramer revealed to significant harm to Decl.) competitors or Google’s competitive counterparties, could standing. cause competitive harm to both Google and the third party. (see Cramer Decl., ¶ 16). Utah v. Paragraph 140, page Contains non-public Granted in part. The Google LLC, 48, line 10 (beginning information regarding proposed language at lines Case No. at the start of the a confidential business 11-12 may be sealed 3:21-cv- paragraph and ending strategy and terms because it reveals specific 05227-JD, before “was the offered during terms proposed to a ECF 1 (Ex. A offer”), line 11 negotiations with a contractual counterparty, to Cramer (starting after potential contractual which could cause Decl.) “revenues for”) to line counterparty which, if significant harm to 12 at the end of the revealed to Google’s competitive sentence (ending competitors or standing. before “That counterparties, could proposal”). cause competitive harm to Google. (see Cramer Decl., ¶ 17). Utah v. Paragraph 141, page Contains non-public Granted in part. The Google LLC, 48, line 15 (beginning information regarding proposed language at line Case No. at the start of the a confidential business 15 (beginning after “to 3:21-cv- paragraph and ending strategy and terms provide a” and ending at 05227-JD, at “also included”), offered during “to Samsung”), and at lines ECF 1 (Ex. A line 15 (beginning negotiations with a 16 through 19, may be to Cramer after “to provide a” potential contractual sealed because it reveals Decl.) and ending at “to counterparty which, if specific terms proposed to Samsung”), line 16 revealed to a contractual counterparty, (beginning after “use competitors or which could cause to”) to line 17 (ending counterparties, could significant harm to at “would include”), cause competitive Google’s competitive line 17 (beginning standing. Document Information sought Google’s Proffered Ruling to be sealed Reason for Sealing after “the following”) harm to Google. (see to the end of the Cramer Decl., ¶ 18). sentence on line 19 (ending before “Any app”). Utah v. Paragraph 148, page Contains non-public Denied. Google LLC, 51, figure 5 (names of information revealing Case No. contractual the counterparties to 3:21-cv- counterparties). confidential 05227-JD, contractual ECF 1 (Ex. A arrangements with to Cramer Google which, if Decl.) revealed to competitors or counterparties, could cause competitive harm to both Google and the third parties. (see Cramer Decl., ¶ 19). Utah v. Paragraph 149, page Contains non-public Denied. Google LLC, 51, line 20 (between information regarding Case No. “developer” and “from an agreement between 3:21-cv- following”). Google and a third 05227-JD, party which, if ECF 1 (Ex. A revealed to to Cramer competitors or Decl.) counterparties, could cause competitive harm to both Google and the third party. (see Cramer Decl., ¶ 20). Utah v. Paragraph 192, page Contains non-public Denied. Google LLC, 61, line 14 (between information regarding Case No. “suggested that a” and confidential business 3:21-cv- “commission”). strategies with respect 05227-JD, to pricing decisions ECF 1 (Ex. A which, if revealed to competitors or Document Information sought Google’s Proffered Ruling to be sealed Reason for Sealing to Cramer counterparties, could Decl.) cause competitive harm to Google. (see Cramer Decl., ¶ 21). CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT In re Google Paragraph 86, page 29, Contains non-public Denied. Play line 4 (between information regarding Developer “Samsung made” and Play revenue data as Antitrust “in revenue”), line 5 well as Google’s Litigation, (between “Google had estimate of a Case No. made” and “in sales”), competitor’s revenue 3:20-cv- and line 6 (between which, if revealed to 05792-JD, “Store had a” and competitors or ECF 129 (Ex. “share of”) counterparties, could B to Cramer cause competitive Decl.) harm to both Google and the third party, and which could also cause confusion for investors. (see Cramer Decl., ¶ 23). In re Google Paragraph 170, page Contains non-public Denied. Play 60, line 15 (from information regarding Developer beginning of line to Play costs which, if Antitrust before “and today”) revealed to Litigation, and line 16 (between competitors or Case No. “at just” and “On counterparties, could 3:20-cv- another occasion”). cause competitive 05792-JD, harm to Google, and ECF 129 (Ex. which could also cause B to Cramer confusion for Decl.) investors. (see Cramer Decl., ¶ 24). Document Information sought Google’s Proffered Ruling to be sealed Reason for Sealing In re Google Paragraph 176, page Contains non-public Denied. Play 61, line 23 (between information regarding Developer “scale at” and “people revenues and Antitrust in”), line 24 (between headcount for Litigation, “larger at” and individual Google Case No. “Revenue per head”), business lines which, 3:20-cv- and line 25 (between if revealed to 05792-JD, “gone from” and “-- competitors or ECF 129 (Ex. but the way”). counterparties, could B to Cramer cause competitive Decl.) harm to Google, and which could also cause confusion for investors. (see Cramer Decl., ¶ 25). In re Google Paragraph 180, page Contains non-public Denied. Play 62, footnote 122, line information regarding Developer 26 beginning after costs which, if Antitrust “figures are” and revealed to Litigation, ending before “as competitors or Case No. noted,” and line 26.5 counterparties, could 3:20-cv- after “processing costs cause competitive 05792-JD, at” to the end of the harm to Google, and ECF 129 (Ex. sentence. which could also cause B to Cramer confusion for Decl.) investors. (see Cramer Decl., ¶ 26). In re Google Paragraph 197, page Contains non-public Denied. Play 67, line 24 (beginning information regarding Developer after “noted above”) to costs which, if Antitrust the end of the sentence revealed to Litigation, on line 26 (ending competitors or Case No. before “These counterparties, could 3:20-cv- companies”). cause competitive 05792-JD, harm to Google, and ECF 129 (Ex. which could also cause B to Cramer confusion for Decl.) investors. (see Cramer Decl., ¶ 27). Document Information sought Google’s Proffered Ruling to be sealed Reason for Sealing In re Google Page 26, footnote 63, Contains non-public Granted. The proposed Play line 23 (between information regarding language may be sealed Developer “between” and “and”), a confidential because it reveals specific Antitrust line 23.5 (after agreement with a terms with a contractual Litigation, “Google”) to line 24 counterparty which, if counterparty, which could Case No. (before “Google”), revealed to cause significant harm to 3:20-cv- line 24 (after “will competitors or Google’s competitive 05792-JD, pay”) to line 24.5 counterparties, could standing. ECF 129 (Ex. (before “to”), line 25.5 cause competitive B to Cramer (between “from the” harm to both Google Decl.) and “that”). and the third party. (see Cramer Decl., ¶ 28). In re Google Paragraph 77, page 26, Contains non-public Denied. Play line 11 (beginning information regarding Developer after “approximately” confidential business Antitrust and ending before strategies and the Litigation, “The numbers”). terms of confidential Case No. agreements with 3:20-cv- counterparties which, 05792-JD, if revealed to ECF 129 (Ex. competitors or B to Cramer counterparties, could Decl.) cause competitive harm to both Google and the third parties. (see Cramer Decl., ¶ 29). In re Google Paragraph 93, page 31, Contains non-public Denied. Play line 16 (between information regarding Developer “Samsung” and a confidential Antitrust “including”). agreement with a Litigation, counterparty which, if Case No. revealed to 3:20-cv- competitors or 05792-JD, counterparties, could ECF 129 (Ex. cause competitive B to Cramer harm to both Google Decl.) and the third party. (see Cramer Decl., ¶ 30). Document Information sought Google’s Proffered Ruling to be sealed Reason for Sealing In re Google Paragraph 174, page Contains non-public Denied. Play 61, line 14 (between information regarding Developer “set at” and “But for”). pricing which, if Antitrust revealed to Litigation, competitors or Case No. counterparties, could 3:20-cv- cause competitive 05792-JD, harm to Google. (see ECF 129 (Ex. Cramer Decl., ¶ 31). B to Cramer Decl.) CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT In re Google Paragraph 82, page 19, Contains non-public Denied. Play line 4 (between information regarding Consumer “revenues of” and revenue for an Antitrust “accounting”) and line individual Google Litigation, 4 (between “for over” business line which, if Case No. and “percent”). revealed to 3:20-cv- competitors or 05761-JD, counterparties, could ECF 132 (Ex. cause competitive C to Cramer harm to Google, and Decl.) which could also cause confusion for investors. (see Cramer Decl., ¶ 33). In re Google Paragraph 88, page 20, Contains non-public Denied. Play line 25 (between information regarding Consumer “made around” and “in Play revenue data as Antitrust revenue”) and line 26 well as Google’s Litigation, (between “made estimate of a Case No. around” and “in competitor’s revenue 3:20-cv- sales”). which, if revealed to 05761-JD, competitors or ECF 132 (Ex. counterparties, could C to Cramer cause competitive Decl.) harm to Google, and which could also cause confusion for Document Information sought Google’s Proffered Ruling to be sealed Reason for Sealing investors. (see Cramer Decl., ¶ 34). In re Google Paragraph 138, page Contains non-public Denied. Play 31, line 19 (between information regarding Consumer “more than” and “per costs for individual Antitrust year”). Google business lines Litigation, which, if revealed to Case No. competitors or 3:20-cv- counterparties, could 05761-JD, cause competitive ECF 132 (Ex. harm to Google, and C to Cramer which could also cause Decl.) confusion for investors. (see Cramer Decl., ¶ 35). In re Google Paragraph 193, page Contains non-public Denied. Play 44, line 7 (between information regarding Consumer “than the” and costs and profit Antitrust “revenue share”). margins for an Litigation, individual Google Case No. business line which, if 3:20-cv- revealed to 05761-JD, competitors or ECF 132 (Ex. counterparties, could C to Cramer cause competitive Decl.) harm to Google, and which could also cause confusion for investors. (see Cramer Decl., ¶ 36). Document Information sought Google’s Proffered Ruling to be sealed Reason for Sealing In re Google Paragraph 87, page 20, Contains non-public Granted. The proposed Play line 20 (between information regarding language may be sealed Consumer “among other things” confidential business because it reveals specific Antitrust and “as well”), and strategies with respect terms proposed to a Litigation, line 20 (beginning to potential contractual contractual counterparty, Case No. after “as well as”) to counterparties and, in which could cause 3:20-cv- the end of the particular, specific significant harm to 05761-JD, paragraph on line 22. proposed terms of a Google’s competitive ECF 132 (Ex. contract with a standing. C to Cramer business counterparty Decl.) which, if revealed to competitors or counterparties, could cause competitive harm to both Google and third parties. (see Cramer Decl., ¶ 37). In re Google Paragraph 109, page Contains non-public Denied. Play 25, line 13 (beginning information regarding Consumer after “services”) to the the terms of Antitrust end of line 16. confidential Litigation, agreements with Case No. counterparties which, 3:20-cv- if revealed to 05761-JD, competitors or ECF 132 (Ex. counterparties, could C to Cramer cause competitive Decl.) harm to both Google and the third parties. (see Cramer Decl., ¶ 38). Document Information sought Google’s Proffered Ruling to be sealed Reason for Sealing In re Google Paragraph 129, page Contains non-public Granted in part. The Play 29, line 23 (between information regarding identity of the contract Consumer “Agreement with” and the terms of a counterparty may be Antitrust the end of the confidential agreement sealed, because the Litigation, paragraph). with a counterparty disclosure could cause Case No. which, if revealed to significant harm to 3:20-cv- competitors or Google’s competitive 05761-JD, counterparties, could standing. ECF 132 (Ex. cause competitive C to Cramer harm to both Google Decl.) and the third party. (see Cramer Decl., ¶ 39). In re Google Paragraph 134, page Contains confidential Denied. Play 30, line 22 (between negotiations with Consumer “up to” and “of counterparties which, Antitrust “Play”) and line 22 if revealed to Litigation, (between “up to” and competitors or Case No. “by 2023”). counterparties, could 3:20-cv- cause competitive 05761-JD, harm to both Google ECF 132 (Ex. and the third parties. C to Cramer (see Cramer Decl., ¶ Decl.) 40). In re Google Paragraph 187, page Contains non-public Denied. Play 42, line 24 (beginning information regarding Consumer at “In particular”) to terms offered during Antitrust the end of the negotiations with a Litigation, sentence. potential contractual Case No. counterparty which, if 3:20-cv- revealed to 05761-JD, competitors or ECF 132 (Ex. counterparties, could C to Cramer cause competitive Decl.) harm to both Google and the third party. (see Cramer Decl., ¶ 41). Document Information sought Google’s Proffered Ruling to be sealed Reason for Sealing In re Google Paragraph 85, page 20, Contains non-public Denied. Play line 5 (between financial projections Consumer “represented a which, if revealed to Antitrust potential” and “annual competitors or Litigation, revenue”) and line 6 counterparties, could Case No. (between “[l]oss [of]” cause competitive 3:20-cv- and “of revenue”). harm to Google. (see 05761-JD, Cramer Decl., ¶ 42). ECF 132 (Ex. C to Cramer Decl.)