MasterObjects, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

10 MASTEROBJECTS, INC., 11 Plaintiff, No. C 21-05428 WHA

12 v.

13 META PLATFORMS, INC., OMNIBUS ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL 14 Defendant.

15 16 This omnibus order addresses all remaining motions to seal and associated exhibits (Dkt. 17 Nos. 161, 171, 172, 177, 180, 181, 190, 193, 200, 202, 208, 209, 214, 215, 224, 229, 230, 233, 18 237, 240, 248, 249, 251, 252, 261, 287). 19 There is a strong public policy in favor of openness in our court system and the public is 20 entitled to know to whom we are providing relief (or not). See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 21 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–80 (9th Cir. 2006). Consequently, access to motions and their 22 attachments that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only 23 upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 24 LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the 25 merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. The compelling 26 reasons standard applies to most judicial records. Evidentiary motions, such as motions in 27 limine and Daubert motions, can be strongly correlative to the merits of a case. Id. at 1098– 1 In addition, sealing motions filed in this district must contain a specific statement that 2 explains: (1) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (2) the injury that 3 will result should sealing be denied; and (3) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not 4 sufficient. The material requested to be sealed must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the 5 sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c). For example, “[t]he publication of materials that could 6 result in infringement upon trade secrets has long been considered a factor that would 7 overcome [the] strong presumption” in favor of access and provide compelling reasons for 8 sealing. Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011). Compelling reasons 9 may also warrant sealing for “sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s 10 competitive standing,” especially where the public has minimal interest in the information. See 11 Nixon v. Warner Comms., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). 12 Finally, “[s]upporting declarations may not rely on vague boilerplate language or 13 nebulous assertions of potential harm but must explain with particularity why any document or 14 portion thereof remains sealable under the applicable legal standard.” Bronson v. Samsung 15 Elecs. Am., Inc., 2019 WL 7810811, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 28, 2019) (citing Civ. L.R. 79-5). 16 “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain 17 documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are 18 sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c). 19 1. MASTEROBJECTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS. 20 Regarding MasterObjects’ motion for sanctions and related briefing and exhibits, this 21 order rules as follows: 22 Dkt. Document to be Result Reasoning No. Sealed 23 161-3 MasterObjects’ DENIED. Meta seeks to seal general, technical 24 Motion for information regarding its systems. Sanctions Meta’s support for sealing is insufficient 25 because it is broad and nonspecific. Given the nature of the information at 26 issue, Meta does not describe with 27 particularity how disclosure of this information would cause it competitive assertion that disclosure would 1 “potentially giv[e] bad actors a roadmap 2 to identifying sensitive information about Meta’s technical operation of Typeahead 3 and related functionalities” (Dkt. No. 168). Meta references source code, of 4 which there is none cited in this document. Moreover, Meta’s request 5 encompasses clearly non-sealable 6 material. For example, Meta seeks to seal the number of source code files 7 produced in discovery (eleven million), and its Rule 30(b)(6) witness’s testimony 8 regarding the general computer-science definition of the word “cache.” The 9 request is consequently overbroad. Meta 10 cites no authority indicating why this high-level information is sealable. See 11 Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., 2015 WL 5012679, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2015) 12 (Judge William H. Orrick). This information goes to the heart of this 13 litigation, and the public interest 14 outweighs Meta’s interest in keeping the material sealed. 15 161-4 Hosie Declaration DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-3. 161-5 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-3. Meta seeks 16 Deposition of to seal this transcript on the grounds it 17 William Pei (2022) contains confidential information regarding its systems. The Rule 30(b)(6) 18 witness described the Typeahead system in generic terms. Meta does not 19 adequately explain how disclosure of this high-level information could allow a 20 third-party to understand its system in 21 enough detail that it would cause Meta competitive harm. Moreover, the request 22 is clearly overbroad, as it includes testimony regarding general computer- 23 science terms at issue in the litigation, such as “index” and “cache.” 24 161-6 Smedley DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-3. 25 Declaration 161-7 Transcript of DENIED See entry for Dkt. No. 193-3. 26 Deposition of WITHOUT William Pei (2020) PREJUDICE. 27 161-8 Internal Agenda GRANTED. Meta seeks to seal internal scheduling 1 information that carries little public 2 interest, public disclosure of which may cause Meta competitive harm. 3 161-9 Internal Technical GRANTED. Meta seeks to seal detailed, confidential Documentation information regarding Meta’s systems, 4 public disclosure of which may cause Meta competitive harm. 5 161-10 Internal Technical GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-9. 6 Documentation 161-11 Internal Brainstorm GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-9. 7 Document 161-12 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. Nos. 161-3 and 161-5. 8 Deposition of Iosef 9 Kaver 161-13 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. Nos. 161-3 and 161-5. 10 Deposition of Philip Pronin 11 161-14 Excerpt of Meta’s DENIED. Meta seeks to seal an excerpt from its Responses to responses to MasterObjects’ requests for 12 MasterObjects’ admission in its entirety. The request is 13 Requests for overbroad, as it includes the requests for Admission admission themselves as well as Meta’s 14 boilerplate objections. Moreover, Meta does not adequately explain why public 15 disclosure of certain responses could result in competitive harm. For example, 16 Meta seeks to seal straightforward 17 disavowals that go to the heart of this litigation, such as “Facebook denies that 18 Typeahead uses one or more server-side caches containing previous queries.” 19 Meta does not sufficiently explain how disclosure of such disavowals could 20 cause it competitive harm. 21 161-15 Excerpt of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-14. MasterObjects’ 22 Requests for Admission 23 161-16 Internal Technical GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-9. 24 Documentation 161-17 Internal Notes GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-9. 25 Document 161-18 Excerpt of Meta’s DENIED. Meta seeks to seal an excerpt of its 26 Responses to responses to MasterObjects’ requests for MasterObjects’ production in its entirety. The request is 27 Requests for overbroad, as it includes the requests for boilerplate objections. Moreover, Meta 1 does not adequately explain why public 2 disclosure of certain responses could result in competitive harm. For example, 3 Meta seeks to seal broad discovery statements, such as “The accused 4 instrumentality identified by MasterObjects — Typeahead — is not 5 sold by Facebook. Consequently, 6 Facebook does not collect, analyze, or generate revenue information for the 7 accused instrumentality. Subject to, as limited by, and without waiving the 8 foregoing General Objections and Specific Objections, Facebook will meet 9 and confer with Plaintiff regarding the 10 number of Requests propounded to date.” Meta does not sufficiently explain how 11 disclosure of such broad discovery statements could cause it competitive 12 harm. 13 171-3 Meta’s Opposition GRANTED IN This order finds this request justified as to MasterObjects’ PART and to the diagram on page seven of the 14 Motion for DENIED IN document, disclosure of which could Sanctions PART. cause Meta competitive harm. The 15 request is otherwise denied. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-3. 16 171-4 Internal Technical GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-9. 17 Documentation 171-5 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-5. 18 Deposition of William Pei (2022) 19 171-6 Parties’ Email DENIED. Meta seeks to seal email correspondence Correspondence between the parties regarding the 20 instrumentalities MasterObjects accused 21 and its alleged failure to provide source- code disclosures. Meta provides only 22 boilerplate statements regarding how public disclosure of this information 23 could cause it competitive harm. Meta has not satisfied its burden of justifying 24 the sealing of this material. 25 171-7 Internal Technical GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-9. Documentation 26 171-8 Parties’ Email GRANTED. Meta seeks to seal six file paths to source Correspondence code directories disclosed in 27 correspondence between the parties. paths themselves for the purpose of this 1 motion practice. The calculus may 2 change, however, in other contexts. Being narrowly tailored, this order finds 3 the request justified. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., 2016 WL 7429304, at 4 *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2016) (Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.). 5 171-9 Transcript of DENIED See entry for Dkt. No. 193-3. 6 Deposition of WITHOUT William Pei (2020) PREJUDICE. 7 171-10 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-12. Deposition of Iosef 8 Kaver 9 171-11 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-13. Deposition of 10 Philip Pronin 171-12 Excerpt of Meta’s DENIED. Meta seeks to seal a high-level overview 11 Responses to it provided of its Typeahead system. MasterObjects’ This description goes to both the heart of 12 Interrogatories this litigation and, importantly, this 13 motion practice, so the public interest weighs heavily in favor of disclosure. 14 Again, Meta has only provided boilerplate statements regarding how a 15 high-level description of its system would result in competitive harm. It also 16 contains no source code, despite Meta 17 asserting that it does. Meta has not provided compelling reasons to keep this 18 material under seal. 171-13 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. Nos. 161-3 and 161-5. 19 Deposition of Bobby Zhou 20 171-14 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. Nos. 161-3 and 161-5. 21 Deposition of Ben Mercure 22 171-15 Parties’ Email DENIED. Meta seeks to seal a passage of email Correspondence correspondence between the parties, 23 specifically, a two-sentence statement 24 summarizing the testimony of a Rule 30(b)(6) witness. Meta has not 25 adequately explained how this high-level statement could lead to competitive 26 harm, and it has only provided boilerplate statements justifying its 27 request. Those justifications fail. 172-2 Parties’ Email DENIED. Meta filed this material conditionally 1 Correspondence under seal, but MasterObjects does not 2 seek to keep it confidential. With no justification, the motion as to this 3 material is denied. 172-3 Parties’ Email GRANTED IN MasterObjects seeks to seal the name of 4 Correspondence PART and a non-party licensee, disclosure of which 5 DENIED IN could cause both MasterObjects and the PART. non-party licensee competitive harm 6 (Dkt. No. 183). Crucially, there is little public interest in this material, which was 7 of only tangential importance to the merits of the motion for sanctions. This 8 calculus may change, however, in other contexts. Being narrowly tailored, this 9 order finds the request justified as to the 10 name on page two of the document. The motion as to the other material Meta 11 conditionally sealed is denied. See entry for Dkt. No. 172-2. 12 177-3 MasterObjects’ DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-3. Meta’s Reply in Support request relies on boilerplate justifications 13 of its Motion for and is clearly overbroad. For example, 14 Sanctions Meta seeks to seal the following quoted testimony, which is clearly not sealable: 15 “Q: Well, most generally, sir, isn’t typeahead all about sending portions of 16 the query to try to provide predicted 17 relevant responses quickly? *** THE WITNESS: I do not know.” Meta has 18 not provided compelling reasons to keep this material under seal. 19 177-4 Transcript of DENIED See entry for Dkt. No. 193-3. 20 Deposition of WITHOUT William Pei (2020) PREJUDICE. 21 177-5 Transcript of the DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-5. Deposition of 22 William Pei (2022) 177-6 Excerpt of Meta’s DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 171-12. 23 Responses to MasterObjects’ 24 Interrogatories 25 177-7 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-12. Deposition of Iosef 26 Kaver 190-3 Transcript of DENIED See entry for Dkt. No. 193-3. 27 Deposition of WITHOUT 190-5 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-5. 1 Deposition of 2 William Pei (2022) 190-7 Excerpt of Meta’s DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 171-12. 3 Responses to MasterObjects’ 4 Interrogatories 5 190-9 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-12. Deposition of Iosef 6 Kaver 193-3 Transcript of DENIED In several instances, Meta seeks to seal 7 Deposition of WITHOUT excerpts of its Rule 30(b)(6) witness’s William Pei (2020) PREJUDICE. 2020 deposition transcript on the grounds 8 that it contains confidential information regarding its systems. All of these 9 requests to seal are overbroad, as a great 10 deal of the material goes to the heart of this litigation. In light of the detailed 11 content in this document, within FOURTEEN DAYS of the filing of this 12 order, Meta may submit a revised request 13 that justifies the sealing of any information that may still be confidential 14 within this transcript and its excerpts. See Dkt. Nos. 161-7, 171-9, 177-4, 180- 15 10, 190-3, 214-6. 16 193-4 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-5. Deposition of 17 William Pei (2022) 193-5 Transcript of GRANTED Meta’s request is granted as to the 18 Deposition of Iosef IN PART and intranet URLs on page 58, lines 4, 5, 7, Kaver DENIED IN and 9. There is little public interest in 19 PART. the intranet URLs themselves for the purpose of this motion practice. 20 Otherwise, it is denied. See entry for 21 Dkt. No. 161-12. 193-6 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-13. 22 Deposition of Philip Pronin 23 24 2. META’S MOTION TO STRIKE. 25 Regarding Meta’s motion to strike and related briefing and exhibits, this order rules as 26 follows: 27 Dkt. Document to be Result Reasoning 1 No. Sealed 2 180-3 Meta’s Motion to GRANTED IN MasterObjects seeks to seal information Strike PART and related to a non-party licensee (Dkt. No. 3 DENIED IN 192). This order finds this request PART. narrowly tailored and that public 4 disclosure could cause both MasterObjects and the non-party licensee 5 competitive harm. Crucially, there is 6 little public interest in this material, which was of only tangential importance 7 to the merits of the motion to strike. This calculus may change, however, in other 8 contexts. The motion is granted as to the green highlighted material at page i, line 9 7 and page 4, lines 12–14, as requested. 10 The motion as to other material Meta conditionally sealed on behalf of 11 MasterObjects is denied. See entry for Dkt. No. 172-2. 12 Meanwhile, Meta’s sealing request is 13 overbroad, and Meta provides only 14 boilerplate explanations for sealing. For example, Meta justifies its request by 15 noting the existence of source code in the document, but no source code is present. 16 Moreover, Meta seeks to seal the identity 17 of the specific accused instrumentalities yet provides no meaningful justification 18 for such a request. The request fails. 180-4 Transcript of DENIED. Meta seeks to seal this deposition 19 Deposition of transcript on account of alleged details Jason Ament about its Typeahead system, but it 20 provides only boilerplate justifications. 21 The request is overbroad. The witness is generally describing the number of 22 Typeahead sessions for the United States, but Meta provides no explanation of why 23 public disclosure of this and other information contained in the transcript 24 could lead to competitive harm. 25 180-5 MasterObjects’ GRANTED. Meta seeks to seal detailed, confidential Infringement information related to its systems, 26 Contentions including source code, public disclosure of which could cause it competitive 27 harm. This order finds the request 180-6 Expert Report of DENIED Meta’s request to seal this 136-page 1 John Peck WITHOUT expert report in its entirety is clearly 2 PREJUDICE. overbroad, though it is hard to evaluate because so many pages are blurry. In 3 any event, the document clearly contains non-sealable material that goes to the 4 heart of this litigation. Meta’s request is denied. In light of the detailed content in 5 this document, within FOURTEEN DAYS 6 of the filing of this order, Meta may submit a revised request that justifies the 7 sealing of any information that may still be confidential. 8 180-7 Internal Technical GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-9. Documentation 9 180-8 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 161-12. 10 Deposition of Iosef Kaver 11 180-9 Declaration of DENIED Meta’s request is overbroad and covers Trevor Smedley WITHOUT non-sealable material that goes to the 12 PREJUDICE. heart of this litigation. However, in light 13 of the detailed content in this document, within FOURTEEN DAYS of the filing of 14 this order, Meta may submit a revised request that justifies the sealing of any 15 information that may still be confidential. 16 180-10 Transcript of DENIED See entry for Dkt. No. 193-3. Deposition of WITHOUT 17 William Pei (2020) PREJUDICE. 180-11 Reply Declaration DENIED. Meta seeks to seal this declaration 18 of Trevor Smedley excerpt, but the excerpt appears to contain only information that Dr. 19 Smedley obtained from experiments he ran on publicly accessible versions of 20 Facebook that anyone could do. Meta 21 has not explained what information here actually qualifies as confidential and 22 provides only boilerplate justifications. 180-12 Reply Report of DENIED. Meta seeks to seal this one-page reply 23 John Peck report, but it provides only boilerplate 24 explanations. Moreover, the request is clearly not narrowly tailored. For 25 example, Meta seeks to seal information such as “I have reviewed Dr. Black’s 26 expert report carefully” and “I have reviewed Dr. Smedley’s reply declaration 27 in preparing this reply report, and I have expect to include these points in my 1 testimony prospectively.” Meta’s 2 justifications therefore fail. 180-13 Correspondence DENIED. Meta seeks to seal this brief 3 Between the correspondence but again provides only Parties boilerplate justifications, some of which 4 are inapplicable, such as the presence of source code. Moreover, the request is 5 clearly not narrowly tailored, as it seeks 6 to seal the entire document, which is primarily legal argument that could not 7 lead to competitive harm to Meta. 181-2 MasterObjects’ DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 172-2. 8 Preliminary Damages 9 Contentions 10 181-3 Meta’s Responsive GRANTED. MasterObjects only seeks to seal material Damages that pertains to its agreements with non- 11 Contentions party licensees (Dkt. No. 192). Crucially, there is little public interest in 12 this material for the purpose of this 13 motion practice because it was of only tangential importance to the merits of the 14 motion to strike. The calculus may change, however, in other contexts. This 15 order finds MasterObjects’ request adequately tailored and that public 16 disclosure could cause both 17 MasterObjects and non-party licensees competitive harm. The motion is granted 18 as to MasterObjects’ requested material. See entry for Dkt. No. 180-3. 19 181-4 Expert Report of GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 181-3. William Latham 20 181-5 Mark Smit GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 181-3. 21 Disclosures Regarding 22 Damages 200-3 MasterObjects’ GRANTED IN Meta seeks to seal material from this 23 Opposition to PART and briefing but only provides a laundry list 24 Motion to Strike DENIED IN of general, boilerplate justifications. PART. This material goes to the heart of this 25 litigation, so there is a strong public interest in it. Meta has not adequately 26 shown that disclosure could cause it competitive harm. Meta incorrectly 27 asserts that its memorandum contains overbroad and requests to seal 1 information that clearly does not qualify. 2 For example, Meta seeks to seal the fact that it told MasterObjects it “did not keep 3 the topline TA metrics generated day- over-day” and that the representative data 4 it produced in discovery would reflect “terabytes” of data. The request is 5 denied. 6 As to MasterObjects’ material, the 7 request is narrowly tailored and covers only material public disclosure of which 8 could cause it competitive harm. See entry for Dkt. No. 180-3. The request is 9 granted. 10 200-4 Transcript of DENIED. Meta provides only boilerplate Deposition of John justifications for sealing, many of which 11 Black do not apply to this document. For example, it contains no source code. 12 Moreover, the request is overbroad and requests to seal information that clearly 13 does not qualify, such as testimony 14 regarding the number of hours Mr. Black spent reviewing source code, where that 15 source code was located, and how many files were on the source-code inspection 16 computer. 17 200-5 Excerpt of Meta’s DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 171-12. Responses to 18 MasterObjects’ Interrogatories 19 200-6 Excerpt of Meta’s DENIED. Meta seeks to seal an excerpt of its Responses to responses to MasterObjects’ 20 MasterObjects’ interrogatories in its entirety. The 21 Interrogatories request is overbroad, as it includes the interrogatories themselves as well as 22 Meta’s boilerplate objections. Moreover, Meta does not adequately explain why 23 public disclosure of the responses could result in competitive harm. For example, 24 Meta seeks to seal broad discovery 25 statements, such as “Facebook will supplement, amend, and/or modify this 26 response as warranted as discovery proceeds.” Meta does not sufficiently 27 describe how disclosure of such broad 200-7 Rebuttal Expert DENIED. Meta seeks to seal a rebuttal expert report 1 Report of John excerpt with technical information 2 Black regarding its systems. But the information in this excerpt goes to the 3 heart of this case, so there is a strong public interest in disclosure. Meta, 4 moreover, only provides boilerplate justifications for sealing this material. 5 Meta references source code, of which 6 there is none in this document, only citations to “FB_SOURCE_CODE[.]” 7 Meta does not adequately explain how this high-level information is sealable. 8 See Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., 2015 WL 5012679, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 9 2015) (Judge William H. Orrick). The 10 public interest outweighs Meta’s interest in keeping this material sealed. 11 200-8 Correspondence DENIED. Meta provides only boilerplate Between the justifications for sealing, many of which 12 Parties do not apply to this document. For example, this document contains no 13 source code. Moreover, the request is 14 overbroad and clearly encompasses non- sealable material, such as generic 15 discovery quibbles. Given the nature of the information at issue, Meta does not 16 describe with particularity how 17 disclosure would cause it competitive harm. It merely provides the generic 18 assertion that disclosure would “potentially giv[e] bad actors a roadmap 19 to identifying sensitive information about Meta’s technical operation of Typeahead 20 and related functionalities” (Dkt. 21 No. 211). 200-9 Correspondence DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 200-8. 22 Between the Parties 23 200-10 Correspondence DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 200-8. Between the 24 Parties 25 200-11 Correspondence DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 200-8. Between the 26 Parties 200-12 Correspondence DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 200-8. 27 Between the 200-13 Transcript of DENIED. Meta provides only boilerplate 1 Deposition of justifications to seal this one-page 2 Michael Rothschild transcript excerpt that do not directly address the material in question. Meta 3 has not adequately explained how disclosure could lead to competitive 4 harm. 5 200-14 Correspondence DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 200-8. Between the 6 Parties 200-15 Correspondence DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 200-8. 7 Between the Parties 8 200-16 Correspondence DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 200-8. Between the 9 Parties 10 200-17 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 200-13. Deposition of Ben 11 Mercure 200-18 Correspondence DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 200-8. 12 Between the 13 Parties 200-19 Rebuttal Expert GRANTED. MasterObjects seeks to seal information 14 Report of Lauren related to non-party licensees from the R. Kindler table of contents of a rebuttal expert 15 report. Crucially, there is little public interest in this material for the purpose of 16 this motion practice because it was of 17 only tangential importance to the merits of the motion to strike. This order finds 18 MasterObjects’ request adequately tailored and that public disclosure could 19 cause both MasterObjects and non-party licensees competitive harm. The 20 calculus may change, however, in other 21 contexts. 200-20 Excerpt of Meta’s GRANTED IN The motion is granted as to 22 Responses to PART and MasterObjects’ requested material. MasterObjects’ DENIED IN Again, there is little public interest in this 23 Interrogatories PART. material for the purpose of this motion 24 practice, and the calculus may change in other contexts. This order finds 25 MasterObjects’ request adequately tailored and that public disclosure could 26 cause both MasterObjects and non-party licensees competitive harm. Otherwise, 27 the request is denied. See entry for Dkt. 202-3 MasterObjects’ GRANTED IN See entry for Dkt. No. 200-3. 1 Opposition to PART and 2 Motion to Strike DENIED IN PART. 3 202-4 Rebuttal Expert GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 200-19. Report of Lauren 4 R. Kindler 5 202-5 Excerpt of Meta’s GRANTED IN See entry for Dkt. No. 200-20. Responses to PART and 6 MasterObjects’ DENIED IN Interrogatories PART. 7 214-3 Meta’s Reply in GRANTED IN MasterObjects seeks to seal the identity Support of its PART and of a non-party licensee (Dkt. No. 220). 8 Motion to Strike DENIED IN The proposed redaction is narrowly 9 PART. tailored, and public disclosure of the information could result in competitive 10 harm to MasterObjects and the non-party licensee. Once more, there is little public 11 interest in this material for the purpose of this motion practice, and the calculus 12 may change in other contexts. The 13 motion is accordingly granted as to the green highlighted portion of page 7, line 14 10. See entry for Dkt. No. 180-3.

15 Meta has not adequately shown that disclosure of its proposed redactions 16 involving, for instance, the names of the 17 top-level folders on the source-code inspection computer, could cause it 18 competitive harm. 214-4 Transcript of DENIED. Meta provides only boilerplate 19 Deposition of John justifications for sealing, many of which Peck do not apply to this document, let alone 20 the highlighted material. Meta has not 21 adequately shown that disclosure could cause it competitive harm. 22 214-5 Transcript of GRANTED IN Meta’s request is granted as to the name Deposition of PART and of the source code method at page 28, 23 Trevor Smedley DENIED IN line 2, and the file name at line 6. There 24 PART. is little public interest in the names themselves for the purpose of this motion 25 practice. Otherwise, it is denied. The remaining material goes to the heart of 26 this litigation, so there is a strong public interest in it. Meta has not adequately 27 shown that disclosure could cause it 214-6 Transcript of DENIED See entry for Dkt. No. 193-3. 1 Deposition of WITHOUT 2 William Pei (2020) PREJUDICE. 214-7 Transcript of GRANTED IN Meta’s request is granted as to the name 3 Deposition of PART and of the source code methods at page 132 Trevor Smedley DENIED IN of the transcript, lines 18 and 22. There 4 PART. is little public interest in the names themselves for the purpose of this motion 5 practice. Otherwise, Meta’s request is 6 denied. See entry for Dkt. No. 200-7. 214-8 Rebuttal Expert GRANTED IN Meta’s request is granted only as to the 7 Report of John PART and names of source code methods, classes, Black DENIED IN and files, as well as source code line 8 PART. numbers, that appear in Section X.B of the report. There is little public interest in 9 the names and line numbers themselves 10 for the purpose of this motion practice. Otherwise, Meta’s request is denied. See 11 entry for Dkt. Nos. 200-7. 214-9 Excerpt of Meta’s DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 171-12. 12 Responses to 13 MasterObjects’ Interrogatories 14 215-2 Meta’s Reply in GRANTED IN See entry for Dkt. No. 214-3. Support of its PART and 15 Motion to Strike DENIED IN 16 PART. 248-4 Rebuttal Expert GRANTED. MasterObjects here seeks to seal the 17 Report of Lauren entirety of a rebuttal expert report with R. Kindler confidential material, public disclosure of 18 which may cause MasterObjects and non-party licensees competitive harm. 19 Elsewhere, however, MasterObjects has allowed the disclosure of a redacted 20 version of the entire document, as well as 21 a redacted excerpt. See entry for Dkt. Nos. 200-19, 239-8. Accordingly, the 22 public interest in this material has been served elsewhere. The motion is granted 23 as to this document. 24 249-4 Transcript of GRANTED MasterObjects seeks to seal information Deposition of IN PART and that relates to non-party licensees. This 25 Mark Smit DENIED IN order grants the motion with respect to PART. the highlighted content at page 55 of the 26 transcript, lines 2–4, because disclosure of this material could cause 27 MasterObjects and non-party licensees 180-3. Otherwise, MasterObjects’ 1 request is denied because it is overbroad. 2 That MasterObjects has entered into plural “settlements,” for example, is not 3 confidential. 249-5 Transcript of GRANTED. The motion is granted as to 4 Deposition of MasterObjects’ requested material. This Mark Smit order finds MasterObjects’ request 5 adequately tailored and that public 6 disclosure could cause both MasterObjects and a non-party licensee 7 competitive harm. See entry for Dkt. No. 200-19. 8 249-6 Transcript of GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 249-5. Deposition of 9 Mark Smit 10 249-7 Transcript of DENIED. MasterObjects’ request to seal this three- Deposition of line answer is denied. That 11 William MasterObjects is “now in the licensing Hassebrock business” is not confidential. Disclosure 12 of this fact, and the corollary that 13 MasterObjects has “received some significant license revenue,” will not 14 cause competitive harm. 249-8 Rebuttal Expert GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 248-4. 15 Report of Lauren MasterObjects seeks to seal information R. Kindler from this 59-page expert report, which 16 discusses non-party licensees at great 17 length. This order finds MasterObjects’ request narrowly tailored and that public 18 disclosure could cause both MasterObjects and non-party licensees 19 competitive harm. Crucially, there is little public interest in this material for 20 the purpose of this motion practice 21 because it was of only tangential importance to the merits of the motion to 22 strike. This calculus may change, however, in other contexts. See entry for 23 Dkt. No. 181-3. 24 249-9 Transcript of GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 249-5. Deposition of 25 Mark Smit 26 3. META’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. 27 Regarding Meta’s motion for summary judgment and related briefing and exhibits, this Dkt. Document to be Result Reasoning 1 No. Sealed 2 208-3 Meta’s Motion for DENIED. Meta seeks to seal general information Summary regarding its pre-suit knowledge of the 3 Judgment patents, an issue it put in dispute with its summary judgment motion. Meta 4 provides only boilerplate explanations that are not even applicable to this 5 content, such as how disclosure would 6 “potentially giv[e] bad actors a roadmap to identifying sensitive information about 7 Meta’s technical operation of Typeahead and related functionalities.” Meta’s 8 justifications fail. 9 208-4 Exhibits Filed in MOOT. Meta filed a notice of errata and refiled 208-5 Connection with these exhibits to comply with the case 10 208-6 Meta’s Motion for management order (see Dkt. No. 227). 208-7 Summary The sealing motion regarding these 11 208-8 Judgment documents is accordingly moot. 12 208-9 208-10 13 208-11 208-12 14 208-13 15 208-14 208-15 16 208-16 17 208-17 208-18 18 208-19 208-20 19 229-1 Expert Report of DENIED. Meta seeks to seal material in this expert 20 John Peck report involving “What [Typeahead] Sends Publicly in Making a [Typeahead] 21 Call to its Server-Side.” It appears anyone could access this information 22 regarding the technical details of messages the Facebook client on a 23 computer or phone sends to Meta’s 24 server. Meta does not explain how public disclosure of this information 25 could cause it competitive harm and provides only boilerplate explanations, 26 such as how disclosure would “potentially giv[e] bad actors a roadmap 27 to identifying sensitive information about Meta’s technical operation of Typeahead 1 and related functionalities.” 2 229-2 Rebuttal Expert DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 200-7. Report of John 3 Black 229-3 Transcript of GRANTED IN Meta’s request is granted as to the name 4 Deposition of PART and of the source code method at page 236 of 5 Trevor Smedley DENIED IN the transcript, line 17. There is little PART. public interest in the name itself for the 6 purpose of this motion practice. Otherwise, the request is denied. See 7 entry for Dkt. No. 200-7. 229-4 Transcript of GRANTED IN Meta seeks to seal deposition transcript 8 Deposition of PART and language involving certain prior 9 David von Bargen DENIED IN litigation and settlements between Meta PART. and non-party licensees. There is little 10 public interest in these passages for the purpose of this motion practice, which is 11 outweighed by the threat of competitive harm to Meta and non-party licensees. 12 The motion is granted for the proposed 13 redactions up until page 25 of the transcript, line 3. This calculus may 14 change, however, in other contexts. Meanwhile, the motion is denied for the 15 remaining proposed redactions, which involve high-level information about 16 Meta’s use of outside counsel for patent 17 prosecution. That Meta uses outside counsel for patent prosecution is not 18 confidential, and it is unclear how such high-level information could cause Meta 19 competitive harm. This information goes to pre-suit knowledge of the patents, an 20 issue Meta put in dispute with its 21 summary judgment motion. 229-5 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 229-4. Meta seeks 22 Deposition of to seal high-level information about its Matthew Avery use of outside counsel for patent 23 prosecution. That Meta uses outside counsel for patent prosecution is not 24 confidential, and it is unclear how such 25 information could cause Meta competitive harm. Such information 26 goes to pre-suit knowledge of the patents, an issue Meta put in dispute with its 27 summary judgment motion. 229-6 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 229-5. 1 Deposition of 2 Christopher King 229-7 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 229-5. 3 Deposition of Henry Tang 4 233-4 MasterObjects’ DENIED. Meta seeks to seal information in Opposition to MasterObjects’ opposition brief to a 5 Meta’s Motion for dispositive motion Meta filed. This 6 Summary information goes to the heart of the case, Judgment so there is a strong public interest in 7 disclosure. Meta, moreover, only provides boilerplate justifications for 8 sealing this material, such as how disclosure would “potentially giv[e] bad 9 actors a roadmap to identifying sensitive 10 information about Meta’s technical operation of Typeahead and related 11 functionalities.” Meta does not adequately explain how high-level 12 information contained in this document is sealable. Moreover, Meta’s request is 13 overbroad and clearly includes non- 14 sealable material, such as the fact that Meta relies on outside counsel to handle 15 patent prosecution work. The public interest outweighs Meta’s interest in 16 keeping the material sealed. 17 233-5 Transcript of DENIED. Meta seeks to seal deposition transcript Deposition of language. This information goes to the 18 Markus Messner- heart of this case, so there is a strong Chaney public interest in disclosure. Meta, 19 moreover, only provides boilerplate justifications for sealing this material. 20 233-6 Rebuttal Expert DENIED. Meta seeks to seal expert opinion 21 Report of John material regarding the validity of the Peck patents-in-suit but does not explain how 22 this analysis addresses its system such that disclosure could result in 23 competitive harm. Patents are publicly available documents. With no 24 explanation, only boilerplate 25 justifications, this request fails. 233-7 Excerpt of Meta’s DENIED. Meta seeks to seal an excerpt of its 26 Responses to responses to MasterObjects’ MasterObjects’ interrogatories. This information goes to 27 Interrogatories the heart of this litigation and also Meta’s system. It is unclear how 1 disclosure could result in competitive 2 harm to Meta. Meta does not explain and only provides boilerplate justifications. 3 233-8 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 229-5. Deposition of 4 Matthew Avery 5 233-9 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 229-5. Deposition of 6 Christopher King 233-10 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 229-5. 7 Deposition of Henry Tang 8 240-3 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 229-5. 9 Deposition of Christopher King 10 240-4 Transcript of DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 229-5. Deposition of 11 Matthew Avery

12 4. META’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERTS. 13 Regarding Meta’s motion to exclude experts and related briefing and exhibits, this order 14 rules as follows: 15 Dkt. Document to be Result Reasoning 16 No. Sealed 17 209-2 N/A GRANTED. No ruling was made on this motion prior 209-3 to termination of the litigation, so the 18 209-4 public interest in this material is de 209-5 minimis. 19 209-6 20 209-7 209-8 21 209-9 22 209-10 209-11 23 209-12 209-13 24 209-14 25 209-15 209-16 26 230-1 27 237-4 237-5 251-3 1 252-2 2 261-2 261-3 3 4 5. MISCELLANEOUS FILINGS. 5 Regarding these miscellaneous filings, this order rules as follows: 6 Dkt. Document to be Result Reasoning No. Sealed 7 224-2 Meta’s Submission DENIED. Meta filed this material conditionally 8 Regarding Claim under seal, but MasterObjects does not Construction Issues seek to keep it confidential (Dkt. No. 9 in Related Case 235). With no justification, the motion as to this material is denied. 10 287-3 MasterObjects’ GRANTED. MasterObjects filed this document in 11 Response to response to the Court’s request for Request for information regarding why 12 Information MasterObjects sought to seal one non- party’s name in some instances but not in 13 others. Given that MasterObjects’ request to seal is narrowly tailored, and 14 that public interest in this information is 15 minimal for the purpose of this motion practice, the motion to seal is granted 16 with request to MasterObjects’ proposed redactions. This calculus may change, 17 however, in other contexts. 18 287-4 Requested GRANTED. MasterObjects filed this document in Correspondence response to the Court’s request for 19 with Non-Party “correspondence in which the non-party Licensee licensees ‘recently expressed [their] 20 desire that MasterObjects seek to seal material related to their respective 21 agreements with MasterObjects.’” Given that MasterObjects’ request to seal is 22 narrowly tailored, and that public interest 23 in this information is minimal for the purpose of this motion practice, the 24 motion to seal is granted with request to MasterObjects’ proposed redactions. 25 This calculus may change, however, in other contexts. 26 287-5 Requested GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 287-4. 27 Correspondence with Non-Party 1 287-6 Requested GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 287-4. Correspondence 2 with Non-Party Licensee 3 4 CONCLUSION 5 In sum, the motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. With respect to 6 motions to seal that this order denied without prejudice, revised requests may be submitted that 7 justify sealing any information that may still be confidential within FOURTEEN Days. All other 8 documents shall be refiled in full compliance with this order no later than MAY 19, 2023, 9 at 12:00 P.M. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: February 7, 2023.

13 = LLIAM ALSUP 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE © 15 16

= 17

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