SUMOTEXT CORP., Case No. 16-cv-01370-BLF
Plaintiff, OMNIBUS ORDER RE PARTIES’ v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL ZOOVE, INC., et al., [Re: ECF 337, 339, 340, 342, 346, 347, Defendants. 349, 355, 356]
Before the Court are a number of administrative motions to file under seal which fall into two buckets: (1) sealing motions relating to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF 337, 355, and 356); and (2) sealing motions relating to Plaintiff’s Daubert motions regarding defense experts Greg J. Regan and Debra Aron, Ph.D. (ECF 339, 340, 342, 346, 347, and 349). The sealing motions are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART for the reasons discussed below. “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, filings that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a 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 tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. Sealing motions filed in this district also must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of must file a declaration establishing that the identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79- 5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Id. Where the moving party requests sealing of documents because they have been designated confidential by another party or a non-party under a protective order, the burden of establishing adequate reasons for sealing is placed on the designating party or non-party. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e). The moving party must file a proof of service showing that the designating party or non-party has been given notice of the motion to seal. Id. “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration . . . establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). “If the Designating Party does not file a responsive declaration . . . and the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal is denied, the Submitting Party may file the document in the public record no earlier than 4 days, and no later than 10 days, after the motion is denied.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(2). Because the parties’ sealing motions relate to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and expert opinions relevant to the motion for summary judgment, the Court finds that the compelling reasons standard applies. The Court’s rulings on the sealing motions are set forth below. A. Sealing Motions Related to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 337, 355, 356) Defendants have filed a motion to seal exhibits submitted in support of their motion for summary judgment. See ECF 337. That motion to seal is opposed by Plaintiff. See ECF 343. Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ sealing request is not narrowly tailored or supported by compelling reasons. Defendants move to seal 7 of 44 exhibits, and they do not move to seal any portion of their memorandum in support of their motion for summary judgment. The Court finds that Defendants have shown compelling reasons for sealing the 7 exhibits in question, as set forth Plaintiff has filed a motion to seal portions of its memorandum and exhibits submitted in opposition to summary judgment. See ECF 355. Plaintiff’s motion is based on confidentiality designations of Defendants and ex-Defendant Mblox. Plaintiff makes clear in its motion that it does not believe sealing is warranted, and that Defendants and Mblox have the burden of demonstrating adequate reasons for sealing. Counsel for Mblox received email service of Plaintiff’s sealing motion via the Court’s electronic filing system, but Mblox has not responded to Plaintiff’s sealing motion. Accordingly, Mblox has failed to demonstrate that sealing is warranted as to documents for which it is the designating party. Defendants filed their own sealing motion in response to Plaintiff’s sealing motion, requesting sealing of a narrower subset of documents than those identified in Plaintiff’s motion. See ECF 356. The Court finds that Defendants have demonstrated compelling reasons for sealing that narrower subset of documents. The sealing motions relating to the summary judgment briefing are GRANTED as to the redactions requested by Defendants, as set forth in the chart below, and otherwise are DENIED. ECF No. Document(s) to be Ruling Reasoning Sealed
337-4 Bloch Decl. Exh. Y GRANTED as to Agreement between a current entire document. StarStar Mobile customer and Zoove Corp. Shows specific prices for a current customer through 2020. Public disclosure of this information would harm VHT StarStar. Hayden Decl. ¶ 2, ECF 337-1. 337-6 Bloch Decl. Exh. Z GRANTED as to Document discloses VHT highlighted StarStar’s commercial contracts portions. with customers other than Sumotext, including sensitive personal information and proprietary business information. No sealing is sought as to Sumotext’s contracts with its customers. Hayden Decl. ¶ 3, ECF 337-1.
337-8 Bloch Decl. Exh. AA GRANTED as to Internal VHT StarStar email highlighted forwarding a pricing portions. communication with a current** confidential and would be harmed if competitors in the market for mobile engagement were able to see its pricing negotiations with this customer. Hayden Decl. ¶ 4, ECF 337-1.
337-10 Bloch Decl. Exh. FF GRANTED as to VHT StarStar’s commercial highlighted contracts with customers other portions. than Sumotext, and summaries of same, contain sensitive personal information and proprietary business information. Hayden Decl. ¶ 5, ECF 337-1.
337-12 Bloch Decl. Exh. GG GRANTED as to StarStar Mobile’s referral highlighted agreements with 17 referral portions. agents, are treated as confidential and disclosure could harm StarStar Mobile’s business. Hayden Decl. ¶ 6, ECF 337-1.
337-14 Bloch Decl. Exh. OO GRANTED as to Contains confidential information highlighted regarding a contract between portions. StarStar Mobile and a current customer. StarStar Mobile treats is customer contracts as confidential and would be harmed if competitors could see its contracts. Hayden Decl. ¶ 7, ECF 337-1.
337-16 Bloch Decl. Exh. PP GRANTED as to Contains historical information highlighted about major customers that portions. Defendants treat as confidential and competitively sensitive. Hayden Decl. ¶ 8, ECF 337-1.
355-4 Plaintiff’s opposition to GRANTED as to Memorandum quotes from Defendants’ motion for portions confidential materials as to which summary judgment highlighted by the Court grants sealing. Defendants in ECF 356-48.
355-6 Greathouse Decl. Exh. 7 GRANTED as to Discloses StarStar Mobile’s portions future business plans. Hayden highlighted by Decl. ¶ 2, ECF 356-1. Defendants in ECF 356-4.
355-7 Greathouse Decl. Exh. 10 GRANTED as to Discloses StarStar Mobile’s portions future business plans. Hayden highlighted by Decl. ¶ 3, ECF 356-1. 355-13 Greathouse Decl. Exh. 13 GRANTED as to Discloses specific discounts and portions proprietary pricing information. highlighted by Levitt Decl. ¶ 2, ECF 342-1. Defendants at ECF 356-8.
355-8 Greathouse Decl. Exh. 15 GRANTED as to Discloses identify of potential portions customer. Hayden Decl. ¶ 4, highlighted by ECF 356-1. Defendants at ECF 356-10.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
SUMOTEXT CORP., Case No. 16-cv-01370-BLF
Plaintiff, OMNIBUS ORDER RE PARTIES’ v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL ZOOVE, INC., et al., [Re: ECF 337, 339, 340, 342, 346, 347, Defendants. 349, 355, 356]
Before the Court are a number of administrative motions to file under seal which fall into two buckets: (1) sealing motions relating to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF 337, 355, and 356); and (2) sealing motions relating to Plaintiff’s Daubert motions regarding defense experts Greg J. Regan and Debra Aron, Ph.D. (ECF 339, 340, 342, 346, 347, and 349). The sealing motions are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART for the reasons discussed below. “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, filings that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a 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 tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. Sealing motions filed in this district also must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of must file a declaration establishing that the identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79- 5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Id. Where the moving party requests sealing of documents because they have been designated confidential by another party or a non-party under a protective order, the burden of establishing adequate reasons for sealing is placed on the designating party or non-party. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e). The moving party must file a proof of service showing that the designating party or non-party has been given notice of the motion to seal. Id. “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration . . . establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). “If the Designating Party does not file a responsive declaration . . . and the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal is denied, the Submitting Party may file the document in the public record no earlier than 4 days, and no later than 10 days, after the motion is denied.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(2). Because the parties’ sealing motions relate to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and expert opinions relevant to the motion for summary judgment, the Court finds that the compelling reasons standard applies. The Court’s rulings on the sealing motions are set forth below. A. Sealing Motions Related to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 337, 355, 356) Defendants have filed a motion to seal exhibits submitted in support of their motion for summary judgment. See ECF 337. That motion to seal is opposed by Plaintiff. See ECF 343. Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ sealing request is not narrowly tailored or supported by compelling reasons. Defendants move to seal 7 of 44 exhibits, and they do not move to seal any portion of their memorandum in support of their motion for summary judgment. The Court finds that Defendants have shown compelling reasons for sealing the 7 exhibits in question, as set forth Plaintiff has filed a motion to seal portions of its memorandum and exhibits submitted in opposition to summary judgment. See ECF 355. Plaintiff’s motion is based on confidentiality designations of Defendants and ex-Defendant Mblox. Plaintiff makes clear in its motion that it does not believe sealing is warranted, and that Defendants and Mblox have the burden of demonstrating adequate reasons for sealing. Counsel for Mblox received email service of Plaintiff’s sealing motion via the Court’s electronic filing system, but Mblox has not responded to Plaintiff’s sealing motion. Accordingly, Mblox has failed to demonstrate that sealing is warranted as to documents for which it is the designating party. Defendants filed their own sealing motion in response to Plaintiff’s sealing motion, requesting sealing of a narrower subset of documents than those identified in Plaintiff’s motion. See ECF 356. The Court finds that Defendants have demonstrated compelling reasons for sealing that narrower subset of documents. The sealing motions relating to the summary judgment briefing are GRANTED as to the redactions requested by Defendants, as set forth in the chart below, and otherwise are DENIED. ECF No. Document(s) to be Ruling Reasoning Sealed
337-4 Bloch Decl. Exh. Y GRANTED as to Agreement between a current entire document. StarStar Mobile customer and Zoove Corp. Shows specific prices for a current customer through 2020. Public disclosure of this information would harm VHT StarStar. Hayden Decl. ¶ 2, ECF 337-1. 337-6 Bloch Decl. Exh. Z GRANTED as to Document discloses VHT highlighted StarStar’s commercial contracts portions. with customers other than Sumotext, including sensitive personal information and proprietary business information. No sealing is sought as to Sumotext’s contracts with its customers. Hayden Decl. ¶ 3, ECF 337-1.
337-8 Bloch Decl. Exh. AA GRANTED as to Internal VHT StarStar email highlighted forwarding a pricing portions. communication with a current** confidential and would be harmed if competitors in the market for mobile engagement were able to see its pricing negotiations with this customer. Hayden Decl. ¶ 4, ECF 337-1.
337-10 Bloch Decl. Exh. FF GRANTED as to VHT StarStar’s commercial highlighted contracts with customers other portions. than Sumotext, and summaries of same, contain sensitive personal information and proprietary business information. Hayden Decl. ¶ 5, ECF 337-1.
337-12 Bloch Decl. Exh. GG GRANTED as to StarStar Mobile’s referral highlighted agreements with 17 referral portions. agents, are treated as confidential and disclosure could harm StarStar Mobile’s business. Hayden Decl. ¶ 6, ECF 337-1.
337-14 Bloch Decl. Exh. OO GRANTED as to Contains confidential information highlighted regarding a contract between portions. StarStar Mobile and a current customer. StarStar Mobile treats is customer contracts as confidential and would be harmed if competitors could see its contracts. Hayden Decl. ¶ 7, ECF 337-1.
337-16 Bloch Decl. Exh. PP GRANTED as to Contains historical information highlighted about major customers that portions. Defendants treat as confidential and competitively sensitive. Hayden Decl. ¶ 8, ECF 337-1.
355-4 Plaintiff’s opposition to GRANTED as to Memorandum quotes from Defendants’ motion for portions confidential materials as to which summary judgment highlighted by the Court grants sealing. Defendants in ECF 356-48.
355-6 Greathouse Decl. Exh. 7 GRANTED as to Discloses StarStar Mobile’s portions future business plans. Hayden highlighted by Decl. ¶ 2, ECF 356-1. Defendants in ECF 356-4.
355-7 Greathouse Decl. Exh. 10 GRANTED as to Discloses StarStar Mobile’s portions future business plans. Hayden highlighted by Decl. ¶ 3, ECF 356-1. 355-13 Greathouse Decl. Exh. 13 GRANTED as to Discloses specific discounts and portions proprietary pricing information. highlighted by Levitt Decl. ¶ 2, ECF 342-1. Defendants at ECF 356-8.
355-8 Greathouse Decl. Exh. 15 GRANTED as to Discloses identify of potential portions customer. Hayden Decl. ¶ 4, highlighted by ECF 356-1. Defendants at ECF 356-10.
355-8 Greathouse Decl. Exh. 16 GRANTED as to Discloses specifics of contractual portions arrangements with mobile highlighted by carriers. Hayden Decl. ¶ 5, ECF Defendants at 356-1. ECF 356-12.
355-8 Greathouse Decl. Exh. 17 GRANTED as to Discloses specifics of pricing and portions contractual arrangements with highlighted by potential ** customer. Hayden Defendants at Decl. ¶ 6, ECF 356-1. ECF 356-14.
355-9 Greathouse Decl. Exh. 20 GRANTED as to Exhibit 20 is a compilation of portions unrelated emails. The highlighted by defendants seek to seal only Defendants at those portions revealing ECF 356-16. confidential business discussions, including prices and bank routing and account information. Doumar Dec. ¶ 13, ECF 356-2.
355-9 Greathouse Decl. Exh. 21 GRANTED as to Summary of events prepared by portions StarSteve in connection with highlighted by fundraising for the acquisition of Defendants at Zoove that includes valuation and ECF 356-18 investor information that is confidential could harm StarSteve if made public. Doumar Decl. ¶ 3, ECF 356-2.
355-9 Greathouse Decl. Exh. 22 GRANTED as to E-mail that included a draft of the portions Letter of Intent and that explains highlighted by confidential internal negotiations Defendants at regarding the structure of VHT ECF 356-20. StarStar, LLC and the possible financial arrangements among its owners. Doumar Decl. ¶ 4, ECF 356-2.
355-9 Greathouse Decl. Exh. 23 GRANTED as to E-mail sent to investors for Defendants at that reflects strategic direction ECF 356-22. and key insights into business approaches, as well as financial summaries, all of which would be harmful if it were provided to competitors, as well as (b) a draft letter of intent with financial information regarding the VHT StarStar, LLC entity and the valuation of the business, which is also highly confidential and would be harmful if made public. Doumar Decl. ¶ 5, ECF 356-2. 355-10 Greathouse Decl. Exh. 26 GRANTED as to Contains information as to what portions ** numbers StarStar Mobile highlighted by continues to be most valuable, Defendants at which impacts pricing ECF 356-24. information. StarStar Mobile treats such internal information as highly confidential. Hayden Decl. ¶ 7, ECF 356-1.
355-10 Greathouse Decl. Exh. 27 GRANTED as to E-mail discussing the carrier portions relationships with Zoove for highlighted by VHT StarStar’s business going Defendants at forward, treated as confidential. ECF 356-26. Doumar Decl. ¶ 6, ECF 356-2. 355-10 Greathouse Decl. Exh. 28 GRANTED as to Duplicate of Exh. 10 and sealable portions for same reasons. Hayden Decl. highlighted by ¶ 3, ECF 356-1. Defendants at ECF 356-28. 355-11 Greathouse Decl. Exh. 32 GRANTED as to E-mail sent to a potential investor portions in StarSteve, that contains (a) a highlighted by summary of business methods Defendants at that reflects strategic direction ECF 356-30. and key insights into business approaches, as well as financial summaries, all of which would be harmful if it were provided to competitors, (b) the summary of events discussed above, and (c) a draft letter of intent with financial information regarding the VHT StarStar, LLC entity and the valuation of the business, which is also highly confidential and would be harmful if made public. Doumar Decl. ¶ 7, ECF 356-2. 355-11 Greathouse Decl. Exh.33 GRANTED as to Communications regarding a portions potential investment (which did highlighted by not occur) including (a) private Defendants at financial account information and ECF 356-32. (b) details about StarSteve and its business activities and its financial structure which is confidential and would be potentially damaging to the Company’s future efforts to raise money if publicly known. Doumar Decl. ¶ 8, ECF 356-2. ECF 355-12 Greathouse Decl. Exh. 35 GRANTED as to Financial due diligence report on portions Zoove, prepared by Mblox highlighted by and furnished to VHT StarStar in Defendants at November 2015. It contains ECF 356-34. highly detailed financial information concerning Zoove that would be damaging if known, even two or three years after the fact. Hayden Decl. ¶ 8, ECF 356-1.
ECF 355-13 Greathouse Decl. Exh. 39 GRANTED as to Discloses StarStar Mobile’s portions financial performance over time, highlighted by customer and reseller business Defendants at arrangements, particular business ECF 356-36. prospects, and problems with StarStar Mobile’s vendors. Leavitt Decl. ¶ 3, ECF 342-1.
355-14 Greathouse Decl. Exh. 41 GRANTED as to E-mail regarding pricing for portions **HYATT, which information is highlighted by confidential competitive Defendants at information and commercially ECF 356-38. sensitive. Doumar Decl. ¶ 9, ECF 356-2. 355-15 Greathouse Decl. Exh. 43 GRANTED as to Email exchange disclosing portions pricing and contractual highlighted by arrangements for a particular ** Defendants at customer seeking to least 356-40. particular ** numbers. Pricing discussions are treated as confidential by StarStar Mobile and would be harmful if revealed. Hayden Decl. ¶ 9, ECF 356-1.
355-16 Greathouse Decl. Exh.47 GRANTED as to Operating Agreement for VHT portions StarStar, LLC containing highlighted by confidential information about Defendants at the Company’s ownership and 355-16 Greathouse Decl. Exh. 48 GRANTED as to Stock Purchase Agreement by portions which VHT StarStar acquired highlighted by Zoove from Mblox. The Defendants at Agreement specifies it is to ECF 356-44. remain confidential and it has been held in confidence. Hayden Decl. ¶ 10, ECF 356-1. 355-16 Greathouse Decl. Exh. 51 GRANTED as to Excerpts of Doumar deposition portions discussing ownership structure of highlighted by StarSteve and identity of Defendants at investors, all of which is and has ECF 356-46 been treated as confidential. Doumar Decl. ¶ 11, ECF 356-2. B. Sealing Motions Related to Plaintiff’s Daubert Motions (ECF 339, 340, 342, 346, 347, 349 ) Plaintiff filed two Daubert motions noticed for hearing on October 24, 2019, one directed to defense expert Greg J. Regan and the other directed to defense expert Debra Aron, Ph.D., each with a corresponding administrative sealing motion. See ECF 339, 340. Plaintiff’s sealing motions were based on Defendants’ confidentiality designations. Defendants filed their own sealing motion in response to Plaintiff’s sealing motions. See ECF 342. The Court took the Daubert motions off-calendar because Plaintiff had not reserved the October 24, 2019 hearing date. See ECF 341. Plaintiff thereafter reserved a hearing date of December 12, 2019 for its Daubert motions. Instead of simply re-noticing their Daubert motions, however, Plaintiff filed two new Daubert motions directed to defense experts Regan and Aron, each with a correspondent administrative sealing motion. See ECF 346, 347. Defendants filed their own sealing motion in response. See ECF 349. As a result, the Court has been presented with six administrative sealing motions relating to Plaintiff’s Daubert motions, a first set of motions (ECF 339, 340, and 342), and a substantially similar second set of motions (ECF 346, 347, and 349). The Court addresses only the second set of motions, but its rulings extend to the duplicate documents submitted with the first set of Plaintiff’s sealing motions. The Court finds that Defendants have demonstrated compelling reasons for sealing that narrower subset of material. The sealing motions relating to the Daubert briefing are GRANTED as to the redactions requested by Defendants, as set forth in the chart below, and otherwise are DENIED. The Court’s sealing order as to each specific document, for example, Exhibit 1 to the Regan Daubert, extend to all copies of the document filed at different ECF numbers. ECF Document(s) to be Sealed Ruling Reasoning No.
346-4 Plaintiff’s Motion to DENIED. Defendants, designating parties, Exclude Certain Opinions do not seek sealing of any portion of Greg J. Regan of the Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions of Greg J. Regan. See Levitt Decl. ¶ 2, ECF 349-1.
346-6 Exhibit 1 to Regan GRANTED as to Discloses proprietary pricing Daubert (Goedde expert portions highlighted information for StarStar Mobile report) by Defendants at that is treated as highly ECF 349-3. confidential and would cause harm to StarStar Mobile if revealed to competitors. Levitt Decl. ¶ 2, ECF 349-1.
346-7 Exhibit 2 to Regan GRANTED as to Discloses details concerning the Daubert (Regan expert portions highlighted capitalization and value of rebuttal report) by Defendants at StarStar Mobile, including ECF 349-7. specific revenues and specific amounts it has lost over time; StarStar Mobile’s current customers, their average monthly fees, and their cancellation rates; and the specifics of StarStar Mobile’s profit-share with the four major mobile carriers. This information is treated as confidential and could allow competitors to undercut StarStar Mobile if commonly known. Levitt Decl. ¶ 2, ECF 349-1. 346-8 Exhibit 3 to Regan DENIED. Defendants, designating parties, Daubert (Goedde expert do not seek sealing of any portion reply report) of the Goedde expert reply report. See Levitt Decl. ¶ 2, ECF 1 346-9 | Exhibit 4 to Regan DENIED. Defendants, designating parties, Daubert (Regan do not seek sealing of any portion 2 deposition excerpts) of the Regan deposition excerpts. 3 See Levitt Decl. | 2, ECF 349-1. 347-4 | Plaintiff's Motion to DENIED. Defendants, designating parties, 4 Exclude Certain Opinions do not seek sealing of any portion of Dr. Debra Aron of the Motion to Exclude Certain 5 Opinions of Dr. Debra Aron. See 6 Levitt Decl. 4 3, ECF 349-1. 347-6 | Exhibit 1 to Aron Daubert | GRANTED as to Discloses the specific price paid 7 (Aron expert report) portions highlighted | for Zoove; the historical and by Defendants at current performance of the 8 ECF 349-5 StarStar Mobile platform; specific StarStar Mobile 9 customers or former customers and information about the 10 particular commercial arrangement with those 11 customers; specifics of StarStar Mobile’s problems with carriers; 12 and similar information that is treated as confidential and could 13 cause competitive harm if commonly known. See Levitt 14 Decl. | 3, ECF 349-1. 15 347-7 | Exhibit 2 to Aron Daubert | GRANTED as to Discloses StarStar Mobile’s 2 (Sullivan expert reply portions highlighted | revenues, loses, customer 16 report) by Defendants at identities, specifics of ECE 349-9, commercial agreements, business iW prospects, and similar information that is treated as Z 18 confidential and could cause competitive harm if commonly 19 known. See Levitt Decl. □ 3, ECF 349-1. 20 21 22 Ill. ORDER 23 The parties’ administrative motions to file under seal are GRANTED IN PART AND 24 DENIED IN PART as set forth herein. 25 This order disposes of ECF 337, 339, 340, 342, 346, 347, 349, 355, and 356. 26 27 Dated: December 16, 2019 hom Lh amen) BETH LABSON FREEMAN 28 United States District Judge