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