RESPONSE in Support re [217] MOTION to Seal Exhibits and Portions of Appendix and Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel filed by Google LLC. (Attachments: # (1) Affidavit, # (2) Proposed Order)(Reilly, Craig)
Page 1 PageID#
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
UNITED STATES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
No: 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
vs.
GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant.
ORDER
PURSUANT TO Local Civil Rule 5(C), Plaintiffs made a motion to seal certain exhibits
filed in support of their motion to compel in camera review of certain documents (Dkt. No. 217).
Upon consideration of the sealing motion and Defendant Google LLC’s response (Dkt. No.
______), the Court finds that (i) sufficient notice has been given (Dkt. No. 222); (ii) the exhibits
and redacted text contain Google’s confidential business information, which may be shielded from
public disclosure under Rule 26(c)(1)(G); (iii) only sealing will sufficiently protect Google from
competitive harm; (iv) the limited sealing and redaction properly balances Google’s interests as
against the public’s interest in the judicial record; and (v) the public’s right of access, whether
based on the good cause standard, the common law right of access, has been overcome; it is hereby
ORDERED that the motion to seal is GRANTED and these exhibits and redacted text shall
remain under seal until further order of the Court.
ENTERED this ____ day of _______________ 2023.
Alexandria, Virginia
________________________________
John F. Anderson
United States Magistrate Judge
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 236-2 Filed 05/26/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID# 1981
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
UNITED STATES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
No: 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
vs.
GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant.
ORDER
PURSUANT TO Local Civil Rule 5(C), Plaintiffs made a motion to seal certain exhibits
filed in support of their motion to compel in camera review of certain documents (Dkt. No. 217).
Upon consideration of the sealing motion and Defendant Google LLC’s response (Dkt. No.
______), the Court finds that (i) sufficient notice has been given (Dkt. No. 222); (ii) the exhibits
and redacted text contain Google’s confidential business information, which may be shielded from
public disclosure under Rule 26(c)(1)(G); (iii) only sealing will sufficiently protect Google from
competitive harm; (iv) the limited sealing and redaction properly balances Google’s interests as
against the public’s interest in the judicial record; and (v) the public’s right of access, whether
based on the good cause standard, the common law right of access, has been overcome; it is hereby
ORDERED that the motion to seal is GRANTED and these exhibits and redacted text shall
remain under seal until further order of the Court.
ENTERED this ____ day of _______________ 2023.
Alexandria, Virginia
________________________________
John F. Anderson
United States Magistrate Judge
Back to 
