SiteLock LLC v. GoDaddy.com LLC

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: July 1, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-02746
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 SiteLock LLC, No. CV-19-02746-PHX-DWL

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 GoDaddy.com LLC,

13 Defendant. 14 15 On June 5, 2020, Defendant GoDaddy.com, LLC (“GoDaddy”) filed a pair of 16 motions: (1) a motion that challenges Plaintiff SiteLock LLC’s (“SiteLock”) decision to 17 designate as “Confidential—For Counsel Only” a particular category of documents that 18 SiteLock recently produced during discovery (Doc. 50) and (2) a motion for a 60-day 19 extension of all case management deadlines (Doc. 57). The motions are fully briefed 20 (Docs. 64, 65, 76, 78) and nobody has requested oral argument. For the following reasons, 21 the first motion will be granted and the second motion will be denied without prejudice. 22 BACKGROUND 23 I. Parties And Claims 24 This action was initiated in April 2019. (Doc. 1.) In the complaint, SiteLock asserts 25 a variety of claims against GoDaddy arising from a “Reseller Agreement” the parties 26 executed in 2013, “under which GoDaddy agreed to market and sell SiteLock’s website 27 security services to GoDaddy’s customers . . . as part of the larger suite of web services 28 offered by GoDaddy.” (Id. ¶ 3.) “When a customer ordered a subscription to SiteLock’s 1 services through GoDaddy’s platform, the customer had the right to use the purchased 2 SiteLock service for a set period of time.” (Id. ¶ 4.) “[T]he customer paid GoDaddy for 3 the SiteLock service at the time of the order, regardless of whether the customer later 4 activated or used the service.” (Id.) 5 SiteLock’s primary claim is that “GoDaddy . . . breach[ed] the Agreement by 6 willfully failing to pay SiteLock for each customer ‘order’ of a SiteLock ‘subscription.’” 7 (Id. ¶ 7.) “Instead, GoDaddy paid SiteLock only if a customer ordered a SiteLock 8 subscription and then subsequently activated SiteLock’s services.” (Id.) “That is, if a 9 customer ordered a SiteLock subscription through GoDaddy’s platform (and therefore paid 10 GoDaddy for it) but did not subsequently activate the services, GoDaddy pocketed the 11 customer’s entire payment without paying SiteLock anything.” (Id.) SiteLock also alleges 12 other contractual breaches, one of which—GoDaddy’s alleged “deceptive use of 13 SiteLock’s name to promote [GoDaddy’s] own competing service,” Sucuri—also serves 14 as the basis for Lanham Act and state-law unfair competition claims. (Id. ¶¶ 10-11.) 15 GoDaddy disputes these allegations. In the parties’ Rule 26(f) report, it summarized 16 its position as follows:

17 From the inception of the parties’ relationship, SiteLock was aware that it received payments for product activations only, and not for product sales. 18 This understanding was consistent with (a) the parties’ agreement, which entitled SiteLock to invoice GoDaddy for product activations only, and (b) 19 SiteLock’s monthly invoices to GoDaddy, which detailed the licensing fees owed for customers who activated their SiteLock products. SiteLock 20 reaffirmed this understanding in the Third Addendum to the Agreement, which SiteLock proposed with the hope of increasing product activations so 21 that SiteLock could claim more revenue. As a result, SiteLock’s first breach of contract claim is a misguided attempt to renegotiate the parties’ 22 contractual relationship after termination. 23 (Doc. 20 at 5-6.) GoDaddy also contends that SiteLock’s remaining contractual claims, 24 Lanham Act claim, and state-law claim lack merit. (Id. at 6-7.) 25 II. Procedural History 26 On September 9, 2019, the Court issued the Rule 16 scheduling order. (Doc. 22.) 27 Based on the parties’ representation in their Rule 26(f) report that they “do not currently 28 anticipate the need to add additional parties or amend or supplement the pleadings” (Doc. 1 20 at 3), the Court set a deadline of October 9, 2019 to amend the pleadings. (Doc. 22 at 2 1.) Additionally, the Court set a deadline of June 1, 2020 for “final supplementation of 3 MIDP responses and the completion of fact discovery.” (Id. at 2.) 4 On October 3, 2019, at the parties’ request, the Court issued a protective order. 5 (Doc. 25.) 6 On February 28, 2020, the parties brought a large number of discovery disputes to 7 the Court’s attention. (Docs. 32, 33, 34.) Among other things, the parties disputed whether 8 SiteLock should be required to produce its contracts with other third-party resellers (which 9 GoDaddy had requested in its fifth and seventh requests for production).1 GoDaddy argued 10 these contracts were discoverable for two reasons: (1) they contain “SiteLock’s pricing 11 terms with third parties,” which are relevant to SiteLock’s alleged damages; and (2) 12 because this case turns on “the interpretation of various contractual terms” in the Reseller 13 Agreement, GoDaddy is “entitled to discovery regarding . . . SiteLock’s historical use of 14 definitions in relation to—or constructions of—the key words” in other contracts. (Doc. 15 34 at 2.) SiteLock disagreed, arguing that (1) its contracts with other third-party resellers 16 are not relevant to damages and (2) “[t]hose separate contracts are irrelevant to the parties’ 17 intent in the separate SiteLock-GoDaddy contract.” (Id. at 3.) 18 On March 5, 2020, the Court held a two-hour hearing in an attempt to resolve the 19 parties’ discovery disputes. (Doc. 36.) During this hearing, it became increasingly 20 apparent that the parties hadn’t adequately met and conferred beforehand. The Court even 21 remarked on this failure in the minute entry issued following the hearing. (Id. at 2 [“The 22 Court reminds counsel that they must meet and confer to resolve discovery issues without 23 the Court’s intervention . . . .”].) 24 As for the dispute over SiteLock’s contracts with other third-party resellers, the 25 Court noted that, under the law of at least some states, it is permissible for a party in a 26 1 Specifically, in RFP #5, GoDaddy requested “ALL DOCUMENTS that use, or 27 define the term ‘signups,’ including all of YOUR reseller agreements with THIRD PARTIES that include the term.” (Doc. 34-1 at 13.) In RFP #7, GoDaddy requested “All 28 of YOUR reseller agreements with THIRD PARTY hosting companies dating from November 1, 2008 to the present day.” (Id.) 1 breach-of-contract action to present evidence that the opposing party, during dealings with 2 third parties, adopted an interpretation of a particular term that is different from the 3 interpretation being pursued in the pending action.2 Thus, given that “under Rule 26 the 4 test for . . . discoverability isn’t whether a particular piece of evidence ultimately will be 5 admissible at trial,” and because “some of these other contracts might end up having some 6 relevance for purposes of figuring out what the parties’ subjective intention was at the time 7 they entered into this contract,” the Court concluded that SiteLock’s contracts with other 8 third-party resellers were “within the realm of discoverability.” However, the Court only 9 ordered the production of third-party reseller contracts executed in or before July 2016. 10 (See also Doc. 36 at 2 [“GoDaddy’s motion to compel is granted as to RFP #5 and RFP #7, 11 for the reasons discussed on the record.”]; Doc. 67 ¶¶ 4-5 [summarizing outcome of 12 hearing].) 13 On March 31, 2020, GoDaddy filed a motion requesting a two-month extension of 14 all “outstanding deadlines in this matter” in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and the 15 illness of GoDaddy’s counsel. (Doc. 37.) Over SiteLock’s opposition (Doc. 42), the Court 16 granted the motion. (Doc. 44.) As a result, the deadline for answers to interrogatories and 17 the production of documents was extended to June 22, 2020, and the deadline for the 18 completion of fact discovery was extended to August 3, 2020. (Id.) In contrast, the 19 deadline for amending the pleadings was not extended (because it had already expired). 20 (Id.) 21 On June 5, 2020, GoDaddy filed the two motions that are now pending before the 22

23 2 Specifically, the Court cited S. Cal. Edison Co. v. Sup. Ct., 44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 227, 234 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (“The rule is well-settled that in construing the terms of a contract 24 the construction given it by the acts and conduct of the parties with knowledge of its terms, and before any controversy has arisen as to its meaning, is admissible on the issue of the 25 parties’ intent. . . . [T]his rule is not limited to the joint conduct of the parties in the course of performance of the contract. As stated in Corbin on Contracts, ‘The practical 26 interpretation of the contract by one party, evidenced by his words or acts, can be used against him on behalf of the other party, even though that other party had no knowledge of 27 those words or acts when they occurred and did not concur in them. In the litigation that has ensued, one who is maintaining the same interpretation that is evidenced by the other 28 party's earlier words, and acts, can introduce them to support his contention.”) (citation omitted). 1 Court. (Docs. 50, 57.) GoDaddy also requested expedited consideration of those motions. 2 (Doc. 62.) 3 On June 19, 2020, SiteLock filed an opposition to each motion. (Docs. 64, 65.) 4 On June 23, 2020, the parties brought a large number of additional discovery 5 disputes to the Court’s attention. (Docs. 70, 71, 72, 73.) Those disputes remain unresolved. 6 On June 24, 2020, the parties filed a stipulation to extend the deadline for responding 7 to interrogatories and requests for production to July 6, 2020. (Doc. 74.) That request was 8 granted. (Doc. 75.) 9 On June 26, 2020, GoDaddy filed a reply in support of each motion. (Docs. 76, 78.) 10 II. Challenge To SiteLock’s Confidentiality Designation 11 As noted, during the hearing on March 5, 2020, the Court granted GoDaddy’s 12 motion to compel SiteLock to produce the reseller agreements it had executed with third 13 parties in or before July 2016. At the time, GoDaddy argued that the primary reason it 14 needed the agreements was to evaluate whether SiteLock had taken inconsistent positions 15 during dealings with third parties concerning the meaning of the disputed contractual terms 16 in this case (because such inconsistency might help GoDaddy in its defense of the pending 17 claims). SiteLock began producing its third-party reseller agreements to GoDaddy in late 18 March 2020 and made additional productions during April, May, and June 2020. (Doc. 59 19 ¶ 3; Doc. 67 ¶¶ 7-9.) When producing these documents, SiteLock designated them, under 20 the protective order, as “Confidential—For Counsel Only.” (Doc. 59 ¶ 3.) 21 GoDaddy argues this designation is overly restrictive and is interfering with its 22 ability to show the documents to members of legal and finance departments. (Docs. 50, 23 51.) GoDaddy’s counsel avers, in a supporting declaration, that she needs to share the 24 documents in this fashion because she has “a good faith basis to believe that GoDaddy may 25 have further affirmative defenses against SiteLock’s claims, as well as compulsory 26 counterclaims against SiteLock for breach of contract and/or fraudulent inducement, based 27 on . . . [her] review of the Third Party Reseller Agreements” but she “cannot conduct a 28 fulsome investigation of these affirmative defenses and potential counterclaims . . . without 1 discussing the Third Party Reseller Agreements with members of GoDaddy’s Legal and 2 Finance Departments.” (Doc. 59 ¶¶ 5-6.) 3 SiteLock opposes GoDaddy’s motion, arguing that it and GoDaddy are now 4 competitors in the same market (due to GoDaddy’s acquisition of Sucuri), the third-party 5 reseller agreements contain highly sensitive pricing information that GoDaddy/Sucuri 6 could use to obtain a competitive advantage, and GoDaddy refused to explain, during the 7 meet-and-confer process, why the pricing information in those agreements might support 8 new affirmative defenses and counterclaims in this action. (Doc. 65.)3 9 In its reply, GoDaddy accuses SiteLock of misrepresenting the parties’ meet-and- 10 confer discussions and misstating the holdings of certain cases. (Doc. 78.) GoDaddy also 11 faults SiteLock for seeking more information about the nature of its potential new 12 counterclaims and affirmative defenses, arguing that such information constitutes 13 “textbook attorney opinion work product—i.e., counsel’s specific mental impressions as to 14 the potential counterclaims available to GoDaddy based on its review of the Third Party 15 Reseller Agreements.” (Id. at 2-3.) On the merits, GoDaddy argues that SiteLock hasn’t 16 met its burden of demonstrating that the pricing information contained in the third-party 17 reseller agreements is highly sensitive because (1) all of the agreements are at least four 18 years old, and thus are “likely expired or [have] been re-negotiated,” (2) SiteLock should 19 have already disclosed those pricing terms to GoDaddy pursuant to the “most favored 20 nation” clause in the Reseller Agreement, (3) the declaration that SiteLock submitted in 21 support of its sensitivity concerns was only made “on information and belief,” and the 22 declarant is the subject of fraud allegations in a different lawsuit, (4) SiteLock’s decision 23 to file the Reseller Agreement as part of the public docket in this action is inconsistent with 24 3 Alternatively, SiteLock proposes that its confidentiality designation be revised in 25 limited fashion as follows: (1) “GoDaddy should be permitted to disclose only those specific agreements for which it can articulate a good-faith basis to believe that they violate 26 the [GoDaddy-SiteLock contract]”; (2) “GoDaddy should identify a single person within GoDaddy to review these contracts and work with GoDaddy’s outside counsel to 27 investigate GoDaddy’s purported counterclaim”; and (3) “the person within GoDaddy who receives access to these agreements should be required to sign an undertaking committing 28 not to disclose this information (directly or indirectly) inside GoDaddy and not to work on any Sucuri-related projects for a period of one year.” (Doc. 65 at 8-9.) 1 the notion that its similar agreements with other parties are highly sensitive, and (5) 2 SiteLock has not consistently safeguarded its pricing information, as evidenced by the fact 3 that it disclosed that information to GoDaddy when negotiating the Reseller Agreement. 4 (Id. at 3-6.) Alternatively, GoDaddy argues that “even if the Third Party Reseller 5 Agreements are entitled to maximum trade secret protection under Ninth Circuit law, the 6 needs of this case still require, at a minimum, that four members of GoDaddy’s Legal and 7 Finance Departments be permitted to determine if the terms of those Agreements violate 8 the terms of SiteLock’s Reseller Agreement with GoDaddy.” (Id. at 6-11.) 9 The resolution of GoDaddy’s challenge to SiteLock’s confidentiality designation 10 ultimately boils down to the burden of proof. SiteLock argues that GoDaddy’s motion 11 should be denied because GoDaddy “has refused to disclose” why it believes the third- 12 party reseller contracts might support new counterclaims and affirmative defenses and, 13 “[a]s a result, GoDaddy cannot meet its burden of showing that it should be permitted to 14 disclose all of these sensitive contracts to its in-house personnel.” (Doc. 65 at 2.) 15 The Court tends to share SiteLock’s frustration over GoDaddy’s refusal to explain, 16 with any specificity, why the pricing information contained in the agreements might 17 somehow give rise to an entirely new set of claims in this case. GoDaddy stated in the 18 Rule 26(f) report, filed nearly a year ago, that it didn’t intend to assert any new 19 counterclaims or affirmative defenses. GoDaddy then stated, during the hearing in March 20 2020, that it needed the third-party reseller agreements for a specific purpose—to 21 undermine SiteLock’s position regarding the proper construction of certain terms in the 22 parties’ contract. Given this backdrop, it is understandable why SiteLock might view 23 GoDaddy’s current position with some skepticism. 24 Nevertheless, GoDaddy’s motive for challenging the confidentiality designation is 25 ultimately irrelevant. When, as here, a protective order is entered by stipulation of the 26 parties (i.e., without a good cause finding by the court), and a dispute later arises as to 27 whether certain documents were properly designated as confidential under the protective 28 order, the burden of proof falls onto the party seeking to defend the confidentiality 1 designation. See, e.g., In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland, Or., 661 F.3d 417, 2 424 (9th Cir. 2011) (“If a party takes steps to release documents subject to a stipulated 3 order, the party opposing disclosure has the burden of establishing that there is good cause 4 to continue the protection of the discovery material.”); Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. 5 Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1211 n.1 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[T]he burden of proof will 6 remain with the party seeking protection when the protective order was a stipulated order.”) 7 (citation omitted). 8 Here, the protective order stated that documents could be designated as 9 “Confidential—For Counsel Only” “only if, in the good faith belief of [the designating] 10 party and its Counsel, the information is among that considered to be most sensitive by the 11 party, including but not limited to trade secret or other confidential research, development, 12 financial, customer related data or other commercial information.” (Doc. 25 ¶ 1(b).) The 13 protective order also made clear that, “[a]t any stage of these proceedings, any party may 14 object to a designation of Materials as Confidential Information.” (Id. ¶ 10.) Thus, the 15 burden falls onto SiteLock to justify its decision to designate its third-party reseller 16 agreements as “Confidential—For Counsel Only.” 17 SiteLock has not met this burden. The sole evidence that SiteLock submits to 18 support its designation is a half-page declaration from its co-founder and chief innovation 19 officer, Neill Feather. (Doc. 66.) In this declaration, Feather states that SiteLock 20 “consider[s] [its] agreements with [third-party] business partners to be among [its] most 21 competitively sensitive documents . . . [because they] reflect the structures of [Sitelock’s] 22 various economic arrangements with [its] business partners, including the prices [it] 23 charge[s] these partners for [its] services” (id. ¶ 3), that Sucuri, which is owned by 24 GoDaddy, “directly competes with SiteLock for the business of hosting companies” (id. ¶ 25 4), and that “[i]t would be very damaging to SiteLock’s competitive position with Sucuri 26 if GoDaddy’s employees had access to SiteLock’s full range of agreements with its 27 hosting-company business partners” because “GoDaddy and Sucuri would learn 28 SiteLock’s range of relationship and pricing structure across [its] business, and [GoDaddy] 1 could take steps to undercut SiteLock or otherwise attack SiteLock’s relationships with key 2 business partners” (id. ¶ 5). 3 Although these assertions may make sense in the abstract, they fail to account for 4 the specifics of this case. The Court only ordered SiteLock to produce the third-party 5 reseller agreements it executed in or before July 2016. Thus, the contracts at issue are at 6 least four years old. The Feather declaration contains no information as to whether the 7 pricing terms in those old contracts remain in effect.4 This significantly diminishes the 8 Court’s concern over the competitive ramifications of disclosing that information to 9 GoDaddy. Additionally, GoDaddy has submitted evidence that, during the parties’ 10 negotiation of the Reseller Agreement in 2013, SiteLock disclosed the prices it was 11 charging a different reseller. (Doc. 56-12.) This undermines the assertion that SiteLock 12 consistently treats its pricing information as highly sensitive. Finally, and in a related vein, 13 the Reseller Agreement contained a “most favored nation” clause under which SiteLock 14 agreed that the prices it was charging GoDaddy were its lowest prices. This further 15 undermines the notion that SiteLock could have reasonably expected that its third-party 16 pricing terms would be off-limits to GoDaddy. 17 This does not mean that SiteLock’s third-party reseller agreements are now fair 18 game for public disclosure. The Court accepts Feather’s assertion that, in general, 19 SiteLock’s pricing terms and structures constitute sensitive information akin to a trade 20 secret. The Court’s narrow ruling is that, under the facts of this case, SiteLock hasn’t met 21 its burden of establishing that a “Confidential—For Counsel Only” designation—which is 22 the most restrictive designation available under the protective order and would prevent 23 4 Although SiteLock asserts in its response that “most of SiteLock’s other ‘For 24 Counsel Only’ partner agreements are still operative today” (Doc. 65 at 7), SiteLock provides no evidence in support of this assertion—it is not addressed in the Feather 25 declaration. Additionally, GoDaddy has presented evidence that many of the agreements are now obsolete. (Doc. 79 ¶ 7 [“SiteLock’s unsupported assertion . . . is contradicted by 26 comparing the Third Party Reseller Agreements . . . and publicly available information. As of June 5, 2020, of the approximately 48 entities identified in the third-party reseller 27 agreements . . . , online research of publicly available information conducted by attorneys in my office suggests that only 24 of those companies continue to have a relationship with 28 SiteLock. Although SiteLock would be in the best position to identify those of the Third Party Reseller Agreements that are no longer in effect, it failed to do so.”].) 1 GoDaddy’s counsel from even sharing the documents, in a confidential manner, with other 2 GoDaddy personnel—is appropriate. Thus, SiteLock must re-designate the documents as 3 “Confidential” under the protective order.5 (Doc. 25 ¶ 1(a) [“Any party may designate 4 information as ‘CONFIDENTIAL’ only if, in the good faith belief of such party and its 5 Counsel, the unrestricted disclosure of such information could be harmful to the business 6 or operations of such party.”].)6 7 III. Extension Request 8 In addition to challenging SiteLock’s confidentiality designation, GoDaddy filed a 9 related motion for a 60-day extension of all case management deadlines. (Doc. 57, 58.) 10 GoDaddy argues that it needs more time to investigate its potential new affirmative 11 defenses and counterclaims, that it has been diligent in pursuing those affirmative defenses 12 and counterclaims (because it only discovered their potential viability after receiving the 13 third-party reseller agreements), that good cause exists and is amplified by the compulsory 14 nature of the counterclaims it is investigating, and that denying relief would lead to 15 inefficiency and the duplication of effort (because, inter alia, many depositions are 16 currently scheduled for July 2020 and some of those witnesses would need to be re-deposed 17 if it subsequently obtained permission to assert new affirmative defenses and 18 counterclaims). (Id.) 19 SiteLock opposes this extension request, arguing that GoDaddy failed to adequately 20 meet-and-confer before filing its motion, that GoDaddy hasn’t been diligent (because it 21 received the third-party reseller agreements in March 2020 but didn’t seek relief until June 22 2020), that GoDaddy cannot demonstrate good cause (because it hasn’t explained with

23 5 GoDaddy’s motion identified this form of redesignation as one possible remedy. (Doc. 51 at 11 [“At a minimum, even if the Court does not de-designate the Third Party 24 Reseller Agreements as non-confidential, the Court should re-designate the Third Party Reseller Agreements as merely ‘CONFIDENTIAL.’ This redesignation will still protect 25 the Third Party Reseller Agreements from use outside of this litigation while allowing GoDaddy to conduct a fulsome investigation—and as necessary, prosecution—of its 26 defenses and counterclaims.”].) 27 6 Because the Court agrees that the third-party reseller agreements contain sensitive pricing information that is akin to a trade secret, it follows that SiteLock’s motion to seal 28 those agreements, and the other documents quoting or referring to the sensitive information in those agreements, will be granted. (Doc. 68.) 1 precision why the third-party reseller agreements might support additional affirmative 2 defenses and counterclaims), and that an extension would be prejudicial because 3 GoDaddy’s current request is part of a larger pattern of “delay-after-delay [that] illustrates 4 its strategy of attrition.” (Doc. 64.) 5 GoDaddy’s motion will be denied without prejudice. At bottom, GoDaddy is 6 seeking to extend an array of case management deadlines based on the possibility that it 7 may, in the future, determine that it wishes to assert new counterclaims and affirmative 8 defenses. This request strikes the Court as premature. GoDaddy very well may determine, 9 after sharing the third-party reseller agreements with its legal and business staff, that it 10 doesn’t have a basis for asserting any new claims. In that scenario, no extension would be 11 needed. 12 Moreover, the deadline for amending the pleadings expired a long time ago (October 13 2019), so it is not a fait accompli that GoDaddy would be allowed to assert new 14 counterclaims and affirmative defenses even if it concluded, following its review of the 15 third-party reseller agreements, that such claims were potentially viable. Instead, GoDaddy 16 would have the burden of demonstrating good cause for failing to comply with the October 17 2019 amendment deadline, and that inquiry would turn primarily on GoDaddy’s diligence.7 18 As noted in Part II supra, GoDaddy refuses to explain the nature of its potential new claims. 19 Although this coyness doesn’t undermine GoDaddy’s ability to challenge SiteLock’s 20 confidentiality designation, it does undermine GoDaddy’s attempt to obtain a blanket 21 extension of all case management deadlines—without more information about the nature 22 of the potential new claims, the Court has no way of evaluating whether they are claims 23 that GoDaddy should have reasonably anticipated at the start of the case. 24 Thus, the case management deadlines will remain unchanged for the time being. If, 25 7 See generally Leibel v. City of Buckeye, 2019 WL 4736784, *2 (D. Ariz. 2019) 26 (“[The] scheduling order established a February 8, 2019 deadline for amending pleadings—a deadline that has already expired. After a deadline established in a Rule 16 27 scheduling order expires, a party seeking to amend its pleading must satisfy Rule 16’s standards. Because those standards apply here, [plaintiff] must first show ‘good cause’ to 28 amend his complaint. Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment . . . .”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). in the future, GoDaddy chooses to seek permission to amend its pleading, it can file an || appropriate motion. At that point, the Court will have a concrete, developed record on 3 || which to evaluate whether good cause for the amendment (and any associated extension of 4|| the case management deadlines) exists. 5 Accordingly, 6 IT IS ORDERED that: 7 (1) GoDaddy’s first motion (Doc. 50), which seeks relief pursuant to the 8 || protective order, not “from” it, is granted. SiteLock must change the designation of its 9|| third-party reseller agreements from “CONFIDENTIAL—FOR COUNSEL ONLY” to “CONFIDENTIAL.” 11 (2) | GoDaddy’s second motion (Doc. 57) is denied without prejudice. 12 (3) SiteLock’s motion to seal (Doc. 68) is granted. The Clerk of Court shall file 13 || under seal the exhibits at Docs. 54, 55, 56, and 61. 14 Dated this Ist day of July, 2020. 15 16 Lm ee” 17 f t _o——— Dominic W, Lanza 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-12-