1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES INC., Case No. 19-cv-06879-BLF
8 Plaintiff, OMNIBUS ORDER REGARDING 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL MATERIALS 10 MARC L. ABRAMOWITZ, et al., RELATED TO DAUBERT MOTIONS 11 Defendants. [Re: ECF Nos. 290, 296, 298, 299, 301, 12 306]
13 14 Before the Court are six administrative motions to file under seal from both Palantir and 15 Abramowitz regarding materials filed in with the parties’ Daubert motions. See ECF Nos. 290, 16 296, 298, 299, 301, 306. The Court has considered the motions and supporting declarations. For 17 the following reasons, the motions to seal Palantir’s materials are GRANTED IN PART AND 18 DENIED IN PART and the motion to seal Abramowitz’s materials is DENIED. 19 I. LEGAL STANDARD 20 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and 21 documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 22 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 23 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, filings that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a 24 case” may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only 25 tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 26 1097. 27 1 information that the filing party believes should be sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(c). For that motion, 2 the filing party must concurrently file (1) a supporting statement explaining the legal standard and 3 reasons for keeping the information under seal, (2) evidentiary support from declarations where 4 necessary, and (3) a proposed order that is “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” 5 and accompanied by a table listing the information sought to be sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1)– 6 (3). The second type of sealing motion is an administrative motion to consider whether another 7 party’s material should be sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(f). For that motion, the filing party 8 provisionally files under seal material that the opposing party has designated as confidential. Id. 9 Within seven days of the filing of that motion, the opposing party must file the statement and/or 10 declaration described above that justifies sealing all or part of the information. Id. R. 79-5(f)(3). 11 Failure by the opposing party to timely file the statement or declaration may result in the unsealing 12 of the provisionally sealed information without further notice. Id. If a party’s filing contains 13 material covered by both Civ. L.R. 79-5(c) and 79-5(f), a party must file separate motions 14 pursuant to those Rules, with each party bearing its own burden with respect to the portions it 15 seeks to seal. Id. R. 79-5(f)(5). 16 II. MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL PALANTIR’S INFORMATION 17 Five of the six motions concern whether Palantir’s information should be filed under seal. 18 See ECF Nos. 290, 296, 298, 301, 306. Two of those motions are filed by Palantir pursuant to 19 Civil Local Rule 79-5(c). See ECF Nos. 296, 298. The other three are motions filed by 20 Abramowitz pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f). See ECF Nos. 290, 301, 306. Palantir has filed 21 responsive statements to Abramowitz’s motions that significantly narrow the material sought to be 22 sealed. See ECF Nos. 294, 305, 308. 23 The material that Palantir seeks to seal broadly falls into five categories: (1) Palantir’s 24 confidential trade secret information; (2) Palantir’s confidential work for third-party clients; 25 (3) Palantir’s licensing agreements and pricing practices; (4) Palantir’s employees’ salaries and 26 compensation packages; and (5) Palantir’s financial statements, overhead costs, and accounting 27 practices. See, e.g., ECF No. 294 at 2–4 (discussing these types of materials and providing case 1 case. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 118–120 (sealing Palantir’s trade secret information); ECF No. 277 2 (sealing information about Palantir’s third-party clients and pricing practices). As to employee 3 salaries and information about Palantir’s financial statements and accounting, ample case law 4 justifies sealing that information. See, e.g., E.W. Bank v. Shanker, 2021 WL 3112452, at *17 5 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 22, 2021) (sealing confidential employee salary and compensation information); 6 Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 2012 WL 4120541, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 18, 2012) (sealing 7 accounting information). The Court further finds that Palantir has significantly narrowed the 8 portions of documents Abramowitz filed provisionally under seal due to Palantir’s confidentiality 9 designations, and that the limited portions Palantir now seeks to keep under seal are narrowly 10 tailored. The Court will thus seal the materials that Palantir seeks to seal. 11 Accordingly, the administrative motions to seal Palantir’s information (ECF Nos. 290, 12 296, 298, 301, 306) are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The following documents 13 and portions of documents SHALL be sealed: ECF No. Document Portion(s) to seal 14 290-3 Expert Report of Dr. Eric B. ¶¶ 46-50, 64, 76, 92 & fn.16, ¶ 106 15 Exhibit 1 Cole 290-4 Expert Report of Stephan p.i (Table of Contents) Headings V.B. 1.&2.; ¶ 33, 16 Exhibit 2 Ogenstad, Ph.D. Section V.B. (¶¶ 35-43); ¶¶ 47-48, 50-51, 54-56 17 290-5 Expert Report of Stephen p.i (Table of Contents) Headings V.C.&D.; ¶¶ 27- Exhibit 3 Parente 36, Sections V.C.&D. (¶¶ 37-48), ¶¶ 50, 51-52, 18 53-55, 60, 62 290-6 Amended Expert Report of p.i (Table of Contents) Heading 6.2; Section 6.2 19 Exhibit 4 Paul C. Pinto (Heading & Subheadings); ¶¶ 34-62 & fns.31, 33, 45, 55, 72, 74; ¶¶ 75; 80-82, 84 & fn.121, ¶¶ 85- 20 86 & fn. 125 21 290-9 April 15, 2022 Remote Tr. 250:11-24, Tr.251:3-12 Exhibit 7 Videotaped Deposition of 22 Stephen T. Parente, Ph.D. 23 290-10 April 19, 2022 Remote Tr. 86:10-15; Tr.193:15-25 Exhibit 8 Videotaped Deposition of 24 Paul C. Pinto 290-12 Expert Report of Nisha p.v (Table of Contents), Section G Headings 25 Exhibit 10 Marie Mody, Ph.D. under “Licensing Analysis”; ¶15 fn. 21; ¶¶ 72-73, 75-78, 80-83 & fn. 116; ¶¶ 85-89; ¶ 119 & fns. 26 194-196; ¶ 120 & fns.197-200; ¶¶ 126-127 & fn.217; ¶ 139, ¶¶ 147-148 & fn.231; ¶¶ 156- 157, 27 Fig. 1 & fn.272; ¶ 158, Fig. 2, & fns.274, 276, 277; ¶ 176 fn.336; ¶¶ 178-189 & fns.338, 340, & fns.375 -76; ¶¶ 195-197; ¶ 199-211 & fns. 390, 1 394, 400, 403-404, 408, 414-415; ¶¶ 212-18 fns. 422, 424, 426, 428-433, 435-437; ¶¶ 219-229 & 2 fns.440-451, 453-460, 462-463, 465-468; ¶¶ 235- 236; ¶¶ 253-259; 3 Attachment A-3 pp. 2, 4, 6 (client names); Attachment C-1; Attachment C-2; Attachment C- 4 3; Attachment C-4; Attachment C-5; Attachment C-6; Attachment C-7; Attachment C-8; 5 Attachment C-9; Attachment C-10; Attachment E- 1; Attachment E-2; Attachment E-3; Attachment 6 E-4; Attachment E-5; Attachment F-1; Attachment F-2, Attachment F-3, Attachment F- 7 4, Attachment G-1, Attachment G-2, Attachment G-3, Attachment G-4, Attachment G-5, 8 Attachment G-6, Attachment G-7, Attachment G- 8 9 290-13 May 3, 2022 Remote Tr.182:24-25, Tr. 183:8-12 10 Exhibit 11 Videotaped Deposition of Nisha M. Mody, Ph.D. 11 290-14 Plaintiff Palantir Amended Response to Interrogatory No. 1, p. 6, Exhibit 12 Technologies Inc.’s l.14-20; Amended Response to Interrogatory No. 12 Amended Responses and 3, p.10 l. 21-26 Objections to Defendant 13 KT4 Partners LLC’s First Set of Interrogatories 14 290-15 December 2, 2021 Remote Tr. 47:20 – Tr. 48:25; Tr. 143:2-25 15 Exhibit 14 Videotaped Deposition of Casey Ketterling 16 290-16 December 15, 2021 Remote Tr.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES INC., Case No. 19-cv-06879-BLF
8 Plaintiff, OMNIBUS ORDER REGARDING 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL MATERIALS 10 MARC L. ABRAMOWITZ, et al., RELATED TO DAUBERT MOTIONS 11 Defendants. [Re: ECF Nos. 290, 296, 298, 299, 301, 12 306]
13 14 Before the Court are six administrative motions to file under seal from both Palantir and 15 Abramowitz regarding materials filed in with the parties’ Daubert motions. See ECF Nos. 290, 16 296, 298, 299, 301, 306. The Court has considered the motions and supporting declarations. For 17 the following reasons, the motions to seal Palantir’s materials are GRANTED IN PART AND 18 DENIED IN PART and the motion to seal Abramowitz’s materials is DENIED. 19 I. LEGAL STANDARD 20 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and 21 documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 22 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 23 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, filings that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a 24 case” may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only 25 tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 26 1097. 27 1 information that the filing party believes should be sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(c). For that motion, 2 the filing party must concurrently file (1) a supporting statement explaining the legal standard and 3 reasons for keeping the information under seal, (2) evidentiary support from declarations where 4 necessary, and (3) a proposed order that is “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” 5 and accompanied by a table listing the information sought to be sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1)– 6 (3). The second type of sealing motion is an administrative motion to consider whether another 7 party’s material should be sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(f). For that motion, the filing party 8 provisionally files under seal material that the opposing party has designated as confidential. Id. 9 Within seven days of the filing of that motion, the opposing party must file the statement and/or 10 declaration described above that justifies sealing all or part of the information. Id. R. 79-5(f)(3). 11 Failure by the opposing party to timely file the statement or declaration may result in the unsealing 12 of the provisionally sealed information without further notice. Id. If a party’s filing contains 13 material covered by both Civ. L.R. 79-5(c) and 79-5(f), a party must file separate motions 14 pursuant to those Rules, with each party bearing its own burden with respect to the portions it 15 seeks to seal. Id. R. 79-5(f)(5). 16 II. MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL PALANTIR’S INFORMATION 17 Five of the six motions concern whether Palantir’s information should be filed under seal. 18 See ECF Nos. 290, 296, 298, 301, 306. Two of those motions are filed by Palantir pursuant to 19 Civil Local Rule 79-5(c). See ECF Nos. 296, 298. The other three are motions filed by 20 Abramowitz pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f). See ECF Nos. 290, 301, 306. Palantir has filed 21 responsive statements to Abramowitz’s motions that significantly narrow the material sought to be 22 sealed. See ECF Nos. 294, 305, 308. 23 The material that Palantir seeks to seal broadly falls into five categories: (1) Palantir’s 24 confidential trade secret information; (2) Palantir’s confidential work for third-party clients; 25 (3) Palantir’s licensing agreements and pricing practices; (4) Palantir’s employees’ salaries and 26 compensation packages; and (5) Palantir’s financial statements, overhead costs, and accounting 27 practices. See, e.g., ECF No. 294 at 2–4 (discussing these types of materials and providing case 1 case. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 118–120 (sealing Palantir’s trade secret information); ECF No. 277 2 (sealing information about Palantir’s third-party clients and pricing practices). As to employee 3 salaries and information about Palantir’s financial statements and accounting, ample case law 4 justifies sealing that information. See, e.g., E.W. Bank v. Shanker, 2021 WL 3112452, at *17 5 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 22, 2021) (sealing confidential employee salary and compensation information); 6 Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 2012 WL 4120541, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 18, 2012) (sealing 7 accounting information). The Court further finds that Palantir has significantly narrowed the 8 portions of documents Abramowitz filed provisionally under seal due to Palantir’s confidentiality 9 designations, and that the limited portions Palantir now seeks to keep under seal are narrowly 10 tailored. The Court will thus seal the materials that Palantir seeks to seal. 11 Accordingly, the administrative motions to seal Palantir’s information (ECF Nos. 290, 12 296, 298, 301, 306) are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The following documents 13 and portions of documents SHALL be sealed: ECF No. Document Portion(s) to seal 14 290-3 Expert Report of Dr. Eric B. ¶¶ 46-50, 64, 76, 92 & fn.16, ¶ 106 15 Exhibit 1 Cole 290-4 Expert Report of Stephan p.i (Table of Contents) Headings V.B. 1.&2.; ¶ 33, 16 Exhibit 2 Ogenstad, Ph.D. Section V.B. (¶¶ 35-43); ¶¶ 47-48, 50-51, 54-56 17 290-5 Expert Report of Stephen p.i (Table of Contents) Headings V.C.&D.; ¶¶ 27- Exhibit 3 Parente 36, Sections V.C.&D. (¶¶ 37-48), ¶¶ 50, 51-52, 18 53-55, 60, 62 290-6 Amended Expert Report of p.i (Table of Contents) Heading 6.2; Section 6.2 19 Exhibit 4 Paul C. Pinto (Heading & Subheadings); ¶¶ 34-62 & fns.31, 33, 45, 55, 72, 74; ¶¶ 75; 80-82, 84 & fn.121, ¶¶ 85- 20 86 & fn. 125 21 290-9 April 15, 2022 Remote Tr. 250:11-24, Tr.251:3-12 Exhibit 7 Videotaped Deposition of 22 Stephen T. Parente, Ph.D. 23 290-10 April 19, 2022 Remote Tr. 86:10-15; Tr.193:15-25 Exhibit 8 Videotaped Deposition of 24 Paul C. Pinto 290-12 Expert Report of Nisha p.v (Table of Contents), Section G Headings 25 Exhibit 10 Marie Mody, Ph.D. under “Licensing Analysis”; ¶15 fn. 21; ¶¶ 72-73, 75-78, 80-83 & fn. 116; ¶¶ 85-89; ¶ 119 & fns. 26 194-196; ¶ 120 & fns.197-200; ¶¶ 126-127 & fn.217; ¶ 139, ¶¶ 147-148 & fn.231; ¶¶ 156- 157, 27 Fig. 1 & fn.272; ¶ 158, Fig. 2, & fns.274, 276, 277; ¶ 176 fn.336; ¶¶ 178-189 & fns.338, 340, & fns.375 -76; ¶¶ 195-197; ¶ 199-211 & fns. 390, 1 394, 400, 403-404, 408, 414-415; ¶¶ 212-18 fns. 422, 424, 426, 428-433, 435-437; ¶¶ 219-229 & 2 fns.440-451, 453-460, 462-463, 465-468; ¶¶ 235- 236; ¶¶ 253-259; 3 Attachment A-3 pp. 2, 4, 6 (client names); Attachment C-1; Attachment C-2; Attachment C- 4 3; Attachment C-4; Attachment C-5; Attachment C-6; Attachment C-7; Attachment C-8; 5 Attachment C-9; Attachment C-10; Attachment E- 1; Attachment E-2; Attachment E-3; Attachment 6 E-4; Attachment E-5; Attachment F-1; Attachment F-2, Attachment F-3, Attachment F- 7 4, Attachment G-1, Attachment G-2, Attachment G-3, Attachment G-4, Attachment G-5, 8 Attachment G-6, Attachment G-7, Attachment G- 8 9 290-13 May 3, 2022 Remote Tr.182:24-25, Tr. 183:8-12 10 Exhibit 11 Videotaped Deposition of Nisha M. Mody, Ph.D. 11 290-14 Plaintiff Palantir Amended Response to Interrogatory No. 1, p. 6, Exhibit 12 Technologies Inc.’s l.14-20; Amended Response to Interrogatory No. 12 Amended Responses and 3, p.10 l. 21-26 Objections to Defendant 13 KT4 Partners LLC’s First Set of Interrogatories 14 290-15 December 2, 2021 Remote Tr. 47:20 – Tr. 48:25; Tr. 143:2-25 15 Exhibit 14 Videotaped Deposition of Casey Ketterling 16 290-16 December 15, 2021 Remote Tr. 97:9-17 Exhibit 15 Videotaped Deposition of 17 Melody Hildebrandt 18 290-17 PALANTIR_CA_00013342 Entire page Exhibit 16 (E-mail communication) 19 290-18 PALANTIR_CA_00077637, All pages 20 Exhibit 18 PALANTIR_CA_00077647- 48 (License Agreement) 21 290-19 Notice of Motion and p. 14, l.10-16, l.20; p. 15, l. 3-8, 13-14, l.25-28, p. Daubert Defendant’s Motion to 16 l. 3 22 Motion Exclude Expert Testimony 23 296-1 Excerpts from May 3, 2022 Highlighted material at Tr.200:2-4; Tr. 200:18-20, Exhibit 5 Remote Videotaped 23-25; Tr. 202:12-14; Tr.203:11-12 24 Deposition of Nisha M. Mody, Ph.D. 25 296-2 Excerpts from February 4, Highlighted material at Tr.71:19, 22; Tr. 73:23,25; Exhibit 6 2022 Remote Videotaped Tr.74:4-18; Tr.75:19 26 Deposition of Lauren DeMeuse 27 296-3 Excerpts from December 2, Highlighted material at Tr.88:8-9, 13, 14, 17, 20, Deposition of Casey 1 Ketterling 2 396-4 Excerpts from December 15, Highlighted material at Tr. 240:10; Tr.242:8-9, Exhibit 8 2021 Remote Videotaped 14, 24; Tr. 243:2-3, 6, 23 3 Deposition of Melody Hildebrandt 4 296-5 Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosure Highlighted material at p. p. 6, lines 7, 11, 14, 17, Exhibit 9 18, 21, 22; p. 7, l.11, 13 5 298-1 Expert Rebuttal Report of Highlighted material at ¶¶ 33, 44, 45, 51, 52, 54 6 Exhibit 1 Douglas Laney (& Table) 298-2 Expert Rebuttal Report of Highlighted material at ¶¶ 195, 198, 205, 206, 7 Exhibit 2 Michael Siegel, Ph.D. 209-211, 212, 215-18, 237-240, 243-246; Appendix C, pp. 96-145, “Key Elements” Column 8 298-3 Expert Rebuttal Report of Highlighted material at ¶¶ 10, 64-71, 73-78, 98 - 9 Exhibit 4 John L. Hansen 101 (& Tables),¶ 104; Attachments 4, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 10 298-4 Excerpts of May 9, 2022 Highlighted material at Tr. 313:1-3, 8, 10, 13-17, 11 Exhibit 6 Expert Video Deposition 19; Tr. 311:16-18, 23-25; 331:23-24; 332:6-7,14- Testimony of Douglas 15; Tr. 339:4, 13; 12 Laney 13 298-5 Excerpts of May 16, 2022 Highlighted material at Tr.188:18-20, 23-25; Exhibit 7 Videoconferenced Tr.189:9, 19-20; Tr. 191:5-9, 14; Tr.192:1-3; 14 Deposition of Michael Tr.198:16-17, Tr.199:10-11 Siegel, Ph.D. 15 298-6 Excerpts of May 10, 2022 Highlighted material at Tr. 162:21-23 Exhibit 9 Expert Video Deposition of 16 John Hansen 17 301-3 Defendant’s Reply in p. 13, lines 17-18 Exhibit 1 Support of Motion to 18 Exclude Expert Testimony 306-4 May 9, 2022 Expert Video Tr. 189:22-24; Tr. 191:12,15; Tr. 266:2-12, 22-25; 19 Exhibit 1 Deposition Testimony of Tr. 267:3-21; Tr. 268:3-7, 11-14, 22-25; Tr. Douglas Laney 20 269:4-9, 12-13, 16-25; Tr. 270:2-6, 21-25. 306-7 May 10, 2022 Expert Video Tr. 162:21-25; Tr. 163:2-5; Tr. 168:18-20; Tr. 21 Exhibit 4 Deposition Testimony of 169:5-18; Tr. 170:2-5, 8-9, 17-21. John Hansen 22 No later than 14 days following this Order, Palantir SHALL (1) file public, redacted 23 versions of the above documents in accordance with this Order; and (2) file public, unredacted 24 versions of ECF Nos. 290-7, 290-8, and 290-11, which are not subject to Palantir’s sealing 25 requests. 26 III. MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL ABRAMOWITZ’S INFORMATION 27 1 seal pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f). See ECF No. 299. Abramowitz has filed a responsive 2 statement to Palantir’s motion that clarifies that he does not seek to have any of the designated 3 || materials remain under seal. See ECF No. 313. In light of Abramowitz’s statement, the motion to 4 || seal Abramowitz’s designated materials is DENIED. 5 No later than 14 days following this Order, Palantir SHALL file public, unredacted 6 || versions of documents containing Abramowitz’s designated information that he does not seek to 7 || maintain under seal. 8 || IV. ORDER 9 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ sealing motions are 10 || GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART according to the rulings in Sections I and III. 11 Palantir SHALL file new versions of the documents as outlined in those sections. a 12
13 || Dated: June 21, 2022 han en Ve
BETH LABSON FREEMAN 15 United States District Judge 16
it
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28