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 exhibits to and
portions of their reply brief in support of motion to compel in camera review of certain
documents, as well as portions of the appendix to the reply brief (Dkt. No. 258). 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. 263); (ii) the exhibits and
redacted text contain private information of non-parties and Google’s confidential business
information, which may be shielded from public disclosure under Rule 26(c)(1)(G); (iii) only
sealing will sufficiently protect those privacy interest and shield Google from competitive
harm; (iv) the limited sealing and redaction properly balances these 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 or 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.Page 2 PageID#
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 268-2 Filed 06/14/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 2594
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 exhibits to and
portions of their reply brief in support of motion to compel in camera review of certain
documents, as well as portions of the appendix to the reply brief (Dkt. No. 258). 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. 263); (ii) the exhibits and
redacted text contain private information of non-parties and Google’s confidential business
information, which may be shielded from public disclosure under Rule 26(c)(1)(G); (iii) only
sealing will sufficiently protect those privacy interest and shield Google from competitive
harm; (iv) the limited sealing and redaction properly balances these 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 or 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.
PDF Page 3
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 268-2 Filed 06/14/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID# 2595
ENTERED this ____ day of _______________ 2023.
Alexandria, Virginia
________________________________
John F. Anderson
United States Magistrate Judge
Back to 
