MOTION to Seal Portion of Exhibit to Motion to Compel re Successor-Custodians and Source Code by Commonwealth of Virginia, State of Arizona, State of California, State of Colorado, State of Connecticut, State of Illinois, State of Michigan, State of Minnesota, State of Nebraska, State of New Hampshire, State of New Jersey, State of New York, State of North Carolina, State of Rhode Island, State of Tennessee, State of Washington, State of West Virginia, United States of America. (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Order)(Teitelbaum, Aaron)
Page 1 PageID#
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
UNITED STATES, et al.,
v.
Plaintiffs,
GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ motion to seal portions of the exhibit referenced in their
Motion to Compel Production of Successor-Custodian Documents and Relevant Source Code,
and pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5 and the standards set forth in Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., F.3d 288, 302 (4th Cir. 2000), the Court hereby
FINDS the motion for sealing should be granted due to Defendant Google marking the
redacted material as confidential.
Accordingly, for good cause shown, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to seal is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that the redacted portions of the exhibit to Plaintiffs’ motion to compel (ECF
No. 229) shall be maintained under seal by the Clerk, until otherwise directed.
DATE: _____________________
____________________________________
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 232-1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID# 1953
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
UNITED STATES, et al.,
v.
Plaintiffs,
GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ motion to seal portions of the exhibit referenced in their
Motion to Compel Production of Successor-Custodian Documents and Relevant Source Code,
and pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5 and the standards set forth in Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218
F.3d 288, 302 (4th Cir. 2000), the Court hereby
FINDS the motion for sealing should be granted due to Defendant Google marking the
redacted material as confidential.
Accordingly, for good cause shown, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to seal is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that the redacted portions of the exhibit to Plaintiffs’ motion to compel (ECF
No. 229) shall be maintained under seal by the Clerk, until otherwise directed.
DATE: _____________________
____________________________________
Back to 
