MOTION to Seal 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.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ motion to seal the exhibits referenced in their Reply in
Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for In Camera Inspection and To Compel Production of
Documents Wrongfully Withheld as Privileged and to redact certain portions of that brief and
appendix that reference the contents of those exhibits, 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
exhibits as confidential or highly confidential.
Accordingly, for good cause shown, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to seal is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that portions of the appendix, the entirety of exhibits 1-6 to Plaintiffs’ Reply,
as well as certain portions of the Reply (Dkt. 257) that reference the contents of those exhibits,
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 258-1 Filed 06/08/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID# 2487
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
UNITED STATES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ motion to seal the exhibits referenced in their Reply in
Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for In Camera Inspection and To Compel Production of
Documents Wrongfully Withheld as Privileged and to redact certain portions of that brief and
appendix that reference the contents of those exhibits, 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
exhibits as confidential or highly confidential.
Accordingly, for good cause shown, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to seal is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that portions of the appendix, the entirety of exhibits 1-6 to Plaintiffs’ Reply,
as well as certain portions of the Reply (Dkt. 257) that reference the contents of those exhibits,
shall be maintained under seal by the Clerk, until otherwise directed.
DATE: _____________________
____________________________________
Back to 
