United States et al v. Google LLC Document 284: Response

Virginia Eastern District Court
Case No. 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
Filed July 17, 2023

Response to [280] Order,, filed by Google LLC. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1 MTC Appendix, # (2) Exhibit 2 MTC Brief, # (3) Exhibit 3 MTC EX 1, # (4) Exhibit 4 MTC EX 2, # (5) Exhibit 5 MTC EX 3, # (6) Exhibit 6 MTC EX 4, # (7) Exhibit 7 MTC EX 6, # (8) Exhibit 8 MTC EX 7, # (9) Exhibit 9 MTC EX 8, # (10) Exhibit 10 MTC EX 9, # (11) Exhibit 11 MTC EX 10, # (12) Exhibit 12 MTC EX 11, # (13) Exhibit 13 MTC EX 12, # (14) Exhibit 14 MTC EX 13, # (15) Exhibit 15 MTC EX 14, # (16) Exhibit 16 MTC EX 15, # (17) Exhibit 17 MTC EX 16, # (18) Exhibit 18 MTC EX 17, # (19) Exhibit 19 MTC EX 18, # (20) Exhibit 20 MTC EX 19, # (21) Exhibit 21 MTC EX 21, # (22) Exhibit 22 MTC EX 22, # (23) Exhibit 23 MTC EX 25, # (24) Exhibit 24 MTC EX 27, # (25) Exhibit 25 MTC EX 28, # (26) Exhibit 26 MTC EX 29, # (27) Exhibit 27 MTC EX 30, # (28) Exhibit 28 MTC EX 31, # (29) Exhibit 29 MTC Reply Appendix, # (30) Exhibit 30 Opposition EX A, # (31) Exhibit 31 Opposition EX B, # (32) Exhibit 32 Opposition EX C, # (33) Exhibit 33 Reply EX 1, # (34) Exhibit 34 Reply EX 2, # (35) Exhibit 35 Reply EX 5, # (36) Exhibit 36 Reply EX 6, # (37) Exhibit 37 Reply)(Reilly, Craig)

BackBack to United States et al v. Google LLC

Tags No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.

Jump to Document 284 or Attachment 1 • 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 • 16 • 17 • 18 • 19 • 20 • 21 • 22 • 23 • 24 • 25 • 26 • 27 • 28 • 29 • 30 • 31 • 32 • 33 • 34 • 35 • 36 • 37

  Formatted Text Tab Overlap Raw Text Right End
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.
GOOGLE LLC’S RESPONSE TO THE
COURT’S ORDER ON THE MOTIONS TO SEAL
On July 3, 2023, the Court ordered (ECF No. 280) Defendant Google LLC (“Google”) to
revisit the materials at issue in three motions to seal (ECF Nos. 217, 247, 258). Google has
undertaken a close re-review of those materials. Upon re-review, Google consents to the unsealing
of large portions of those materials, but respectfully requests that the portions of documents
discussing Google’s confidential commercial information remain under seal.
Allowing such
information to be sealed would comport with Fourth Circuit precedent holding that non-public
commercial information, the disclosure of which would cause competitive harm to a litigant, may
be sealed. Google also respectfully requests—consistent with the approach the court in the Southern
District of New York has taken and this Court has taken so far—that the Court protect its employees’
privacy interests by allowing their personal information to remain under seal at this time.1 In
accordance with the Court’s July 3 order, Google is concurrently submitting redacted versions of the
Google acknowledges, as the Court noted in its July 3 order, that not all employee information
is likely to remain confidential as this case progresses. ECF No. 280 at 3.
Page 2 PageID#
documents it proposes to remain under seal in part, as well as less-redacted versions of the
memoranda of law supporting Plaintiffs’ motion to compel.
BACKGROUND
On May 19, 2023, Plaintiffs moved for in camera review of 21 documents Google withheld
or redacted as privileged or protected, and to compel Google to produce those documents
depending on the outcome of the in camera review. Plaintiffs’ motion focused on two categories
of documents: (1) documents related to codenamed projects that were undertaken in response to
government investigations and in anticipation of litigation, and (2) documents purportedly
supporting Plaintiffs’ claim that Google employees allegedly tried to shield regular business
documents from disclosure by copying attorneys pursuant to a “Communicate with Care” policy.
See Mem. in Support of Pls.’ Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 215.
In support of their motion, Plaintiffs submitted 31 exhibits, nine of which Plaintiffs used to
support their “Communicate with Care” argument.2 Plaintiffs submitted six additional exhibits to
their Reply in support of their motion, four of which were unredacted or less inclusive versions of
the exhibits Plaintiffs had filed previously. ECF Nos. 257-260. Plaintiffs also redacted portions
of their briefs discussing these documents. Because these documents appeared to contain Google’s
confidential business information as well as the personal information of Google employees,
Google supported keeping them under seal. ECF Nos. 236, 268.
In opposing Plaintiffs’ motion, Google submitted three exhibits. ECF No. 245. Google
moved to seal these exhibits because they contained confidential business information or the names
of Google employees, whose privacy it sought to protect. ECF No. 248.

See Exs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 to Pls.’ Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 214.
Page 3 PageID#
Following a hearing on June 15 and in camera review of one of the documents at issue, the
Court ultimately denied Plaintiffs’ motion. The Court declined to review in camera documents
relating to the codenamed projects. See Order at 1 (June 23, 2023), ECF No. 274. The Court
based that ruling on Google’s “privilege log [attached as an Appendix to Plaintiffs’ motion to
compel], the deposition testimony of [Google’s 30(b)(6)] representative, the declaration [of Ted
Lazarus] accompanying the opposition, and the various communications from [Google’s] counsel
that were included as exhibits to the pleadings.” Id. After reviewing the one remaining document
at issue in camera, and after ordering Google to provide further explanation as to the
appropriateness of one of the redactions in that document, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to
compel as to that document. See id. at 1-2; Order at 1 (July 3, 2023), ECF No. 279. Neither
Plaintiffs’ “Communicate with Care” argument nor the exhibits Plaintiffs cited in support of that
argument served as the basis of the Court’s orders on the Plaintiffs’ motion to compel.
After denying Plaintiffs’ motion to compel, the Court ordered Google to revisit the
documents at issue in the motions to seal accompanying the parties’ submissions on the motion to
compel and to submit a memorandum to the Court detailing the results of its review. See Order at
4 (July 3, 2023) (“Sealing Order”), ECF No. 280. Google has undertaken that re-review and
respectfully submits that limited portions of the documents at issue should remain under seal to
protect the privacy interests of Google’s employees and the confidential business information of
Google.
Page 4 PageID#
ARGUMENT
Google has carefully re-reviewed the materials filed in whole or in part under seal.3 In
accordance with the Court’s July 3 order, Google has determined that much of the information
contained in the materials submitted to the Court in connection with the motion to compel can be
unsealed—including communications between Google’s lawyers and the Department of Justice
(“DOJ”), the entirety of the Declaration of Ted Lazarus submitted in opposition to Plaintiffs’
motion to compel, internal communications about routine and administrative matters, nonsensitive employee training materials, and high-level descriptions of the remedy projects at issue
in the motion to compel. Accordingly, Google agrees that a large portion of the materials may be
unsealed either completely or with only the personal information of Google employees redacted,
and proposes narrow redactions to the rest.
Google’s requests are summarized in the
accompanying chart (Attachment A).
Google respectfully requests that the Court keep under seal documents or portions of
documents that contain (i) personal information of Google employees or (ii) confidential
commercial information of Google.
While Google acknowledges—and agrees—that it is
“unlikely” that all employee information will remain “under seal throughout this litigation,”
Sealing Order at 3, Google requests that such information be kept under seal at this time. Sealing
employee names, email addresses, and other personal information of Google employees would be
Google designated as “Highly Confidential” documents it produced in response to the United
States’ Civil Investigative Demands (“CIDs”) prior to the filing of this litigation, as Google
expected that its productions would remain confidential under the Antitrust Civil Process Act. U.S.C. § 1311 et seq. The Protective Order in this case provides that investigation materials
“shall retain” the confidentiality designations that they were given during the investigation. See
Protective Order ¶ 4, ECF No. 203. Nevertheless, Google acknowledges its “obligation to review
closely each redaction and document that plaintiffs file under seal” in this litigation, regardless of
a document’s previous confidentiality designation. See Sealing Order at 3.
Page 5 PageID#
consistent with—and a contrary approach may undermine—Judge Castel’s sealing practice in the
related litigation in the Southern District of New York. See Order at 9, In re Google Digit. Advert.
Litig., 1:21-md-03010 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2021), ECF No. 147. To be consistent with Judge
Castel’s sealing orders, this Court previously indicated that it would also be inclined to continue
to seal such employee information. See Tr. of Mot. to Transfer & Mot. to Seal at 27, ECF No. 59.
Google also requests that its confidential commercial information (including information
about its customers)—the disclosure of which would harm Google by placing it at a competitive
disadvantage—remain sealed. As the Fourth Circuit has consistently recognized, protecting such
confidential commercial information to prevent competitors from “unfairly gaining a business
advantage” qualifies as a “significant interest that outweighs the presumption” of access to
“judicial records and documents.”4 Va. Dep’t of State Police v. Wash. Post, 386 F.3d 567, (4th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks omitted); accord, e.g., In re Knight Publ’g Co., 743 F.2d 231,
235 (4th Cir. 1984); see also Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978) (“[C]ourts
have refused to permit their files to serve . . . as sources of business information that might harm
a litigant’s competitive standing.”). Courts in this District have likewise recognized that non-
The presumption of access applies only to “judicial records.” BASF Plant Sci., LP v.
Commonwealth Sci. & Indus. Rsch. Org., No. 2:17-cv-0503, 2019 WL 8108115, at *1 (E.D. Va.
Aug. 15, 2019). Indeed, this Court recently observed that “[t]he mere filing of a document does
not trigger the guarantee of access.” Oberg v. Nelnet, Inc., No. 1:07-cv-00960, 2023 WL 4312594,
at *2 (E.D. Va. July 3, 2023) (Anderson, M.J.). On the contrary, only documents that “play a role
in the adjudicative process” are judicial records. In re United States for an Ord. Pursuant to U.S.C. § 2703(D), 707 F.3d 283, 290 (4th Cir. 2013). Here, the Court relied only on Google’s
privilege log attached as an Appendix to Plaintiffs’ motion to compel, the Declaration of Ted
Lazarus (ECF No. 245-001), Google’s 30(b)(6) deposition transcript, and letters between Google’s
counsel and DOJ in deciding Plaintiffs’ motion to compel. See Order at 1, ECF No. 274. The
remaining exhibits are therefore not judicial documents. Some courts have allowed such nonjudicial documents to be sealed only upon a showing of “good cause.” See, e.g., Smithkline
Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Labs., No. 1:15-cv-0360, 2017 WL 11552659, at *2 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 7,
2017). But even under the “significant interests” standard for judicial records, Google’s
confidential business information should remain under seal.
Page 6 PageID#
public information about a business’s customers is properly sealed as commercially sensitive. See,
e.g., Navient Sols., LLC v. L. Offs. of Jeffrey Lohman, P.C., No. 1:19-cv-461, 2020 WL 13609407,
at *2 (E.D. Va. July 21, 2020) (redacting client information appropriate to “protect the identities
of nonparties to this action”); ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc., No. 2:10-cv248, 2011 WL 7046021, at *1-2 (E.D. Va. Dec. 7, 2011) (allowing redaction of “the terms of any
agreements with non-parties which are not strictly necessary to the arguments” because such
information “concerns matters of commercial interest to the parties and not of general interest to
the public”). A significant countervailing interest thus favors sealing Google’s confidential
business information.
In response to the Court’s order, Google has sought to maximize the amount of information
available to the public by proposing narrowly tailored redactions to keep only its confidential
commercial information and the personal information of its employees sealed, enabling the balance
of the materials to be filed publicly. As set forth in more detail below, Google respectfully requests
that the Court keep fully sealed seven out of the 40 exhibits associated with Plaintiffs’ motion to
compel, keep partially sealed 20 exhibits for employee personal and Google confidential
commercial information, and unseal the rest, save for Google employee information. Google
submits herewith proposed redacted versions of the exhibits it requests to be partially sealed, as
well as less-redacted versions of the memorandum of law and reply memorandum of law in support
of Plaintiffs’ motion that redact only the limited information that Google continues to believe
should remain under seal.
Consistent with the Court’s guidance, ECF No. 280, Google believes that only personal
information need be redacted in Plaintiffs’ Appendices and in Google’s memorandum of law in
opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel. Google is filing a less-redacted version of Plaintiffs’
Appendices. Google’s opposition brief filed with the Court already only redacts for employee
information.
Page 7 PageID#
I.
Documents That Google Requests Remain Fully Sealed.
For the reasons set forth below, Google respectfully requests that the Court keep fully
sealed the following seven documents, none of which served as a basis for the Court’s orders on
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel:
● Exhibit 5 to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel. This email chain consists of non-public and
commercially sensitive information related to Google’s business strategy and pricing
decisions for display advertising features, impressions of customers, and product
development. Because Google would suffer competitive harm if this information were
made public, Google requests that the document remain under seal.
● Exhibit 20 to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel. This internal Google document consists of
non-public and commercially sensitive information related to Google’s display advertising
strategy, including potential future pricing strategy.
● Exhibit 23 to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel. This internal document consists of non-public
and commercially sensitive information related to Google’s commercial plans—including
future objectives with regard to revenue, inventory, and user data—and related analysis.
Because Google would suffer competitive harm if this information were made public,
Google requests that the document remain under seal.
● Exhibit 24 to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel. This email chain consists of Google employee
comments to Exhibit 23 to Plaintiffs’ motion to compel, which as noted above is a
commercially sensitive document. The employee comments similarly discuss non-public
and commercially sensitive information related to product development and strategy.
Because Google would suffer competitive harm if this information were made public,
Google requests that the document remain under seal.
● Exhibit 26 to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel. This internal Google document contains nonpublic and commercially sensitive information related to Google’s analysis of its work for
a third-party publisher and its strategy for servicing that customer going forward. Because
Google would suffer competitive harm if this information were made public, Google
requests that the document remain under seal. The document should also remain under
seal because it reveals confidential customer information.
● Exhibits 3 & 4 to Plaintiffs’ Reply. These versions of the same internal Google document—
with different redactions for privilege based on Google’s decision to disclose portions of
the document to Plaintiffs upon re-review—summarize a confidential commercial proposal
that Google intended to make to a third party. The proposal includes input from close to a
dozen distinct commercial divisions across a broad range of Google’s product areas and
business units, providing visibility into Google’s strategic decision and deal-making logic.
See Decl. of Jason Washing ¶ 4, ECF No. 268-1. The proposal also reveals competitive
strategy, including business and pricing strategy, as well as confidential and bespoke
contract terms. Id. Because Google would suffer competitive harm if this information were
Page 8 PageID#
made public, Google requests that the document remain under seal. The document should
also remain under seal because it reveals confidential customer information.
II.
Documents That Google Requests Remain Partially Sealed for Personal and
Confidential Commercial Information.
For the reasons set forth below, Google respectfully requests that the Court shield from
public view the personal information of Google employees and Google’s confidential commercial
information by accepting redacted versions of the following materials, only one of which the Court
relied on in deciding Plaintiffs’ motion to compel—and which Google agrees may be filed almost
entirely in unredacted form:
● Exhibit 4 to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel. Portions of this internal presentation contain
commercially sensitive information (on pages GOOG-DOJ-06890340-342, -344, -346,
352-354, -356) related to Google’s users, competitors, and key objectives, as well as
revenue and other financial data. Google has filed a redacted version of this document that
seals only this commercially sensitive information, as well as Google employees’ personal
information.
● Exhibit 6 to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel. The first-in-time email in this email chain (on
page GOOG-DOJ-07804119) contains non-public commercial information related to a
third-party Google customer, including information about pricing and potential changes to
Google’s products. Because Google would suffer competitive harm if this information
were made public, Google requests that this information remain under seal. That
information should also remain under seal because it reveals confidential customer
information. Google has filed a redacted version of this document that seals only this
commercially sensitive information, as well as Google employees’ personal information.
● Exhibit 7 to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel. Portions of this email chain contain non-public
information about Google’s pricing and commercial strategy, as well as Google’s
nonpublic analysis of its competitors. Because Google would suffer competitive harm if
this information were made public, Google requests that this information remain under
seal. Independently, the second most recent email in the chain should remain under seal
because it reveals confidential customer information. Google has filed a redacted version
of this document that seals only this commercially sensitive information, as well as Google
employees’ personal information.
● Exhibit 8 to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel. The first-in-time email in this email chain
contains non-public and commercially sensitive information, including information about
and analysis of Google’s top partners, confidential revenue data, and Google’s partnership
strategy and future business plans. Because Google would suffer competitive harm if this
information were made public, Google requests that this information remain under seal.
Google has filed a redacted version of this document that seals only this commercially
sensitive information, as well as Google employees’ personal information.
Page 9 PageID#
● Exhibit 9 to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel. The first-in-time email in this chain (on pages
GOOG-DOJ-15157184-187) contains a non-public revenue and impact analysis of
Google’s auction changes on its customers and includes non-public information about
Google’s publisher customers. Because Google would suffer competitive harm if this
information were made public, Google requests that this information remain under seal.
That information should also remain under seal because it reveals confidential customer
information. Google has filed a redacted version of this document that seals only this
commercially sensitive information, as well as Google employees’ personal information.
● Exhibit 10 to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and Exhibits 1 & 2 to Plaintiffs’ Reply. These
are versions of the same email chain, with differing privilege redactions based on Google’s
decision to disclose portions as non-privileged upon re-reviewing these documents. ECF
No. 245 at 2. Except for the four latest-in-time emails (on page GOOG-DOJ-AT01019463), this email chain consists of non-public information about Google’s business
strategy and future business plans, Google’s revenue and margins, and its nonpublic
assessments of its competitors. Because Google would suffer competitive harm if this
information were made public, Google requests that this information remain under seal.
Google has filed a redacted version of this document that seals only this commercially
sensitive information, as well as Google employees’ personal information.
● Exhibit 14 to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, Exhibit B to Google’s Opposition, and Exhibit
5 to Plaintiffs’ Reply. These are excerpts from and the full deposition transcript of Google’s
30(b)(6) corporate representative, who was deposed pursuant to DOJ’s CIDs issued under
the Antitrust Civil Process Act (“ACPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1311 et seq. The vast majority of
the transcript and its excerpts are suitable for disclosure to the public. Limited portions of
the transcript contain sensitive non-public information about Google’s competitive
strategy, proprietary product features, potential future changes to those features, internal
processes and operations, and proprietary technology. Because Google would suffer
competitive harm if this information were made public, Google requests that this
information remain under seal. Google has filed a redacted version of this document that
seals only this commercially sensitive information, as well as Google employees’ personal
information.
● Exhibit 18 to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and Exhibit 6 to Plaintiffs’ Reply. These are
excerpts from the deposition transcript of a Google employee, who was deposed pursuant
to DOJ’s CIDs issued under the ACPA. Portions of the transcript discuss the substance of
a confidential Google project (on pages 197, 198, and 202). Because Google would suffer
competitive harm if this information were made public, Google requests that this
information remain under seal. Google has filed a redacted version of this document that
seals only this commercially sensitive information, as well as Google employees’ personal
information.
● Exhibit 21 to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel. The first-in-time email in this email chain (on
page GOOG-DOJ-10963552-001) contains non-public information about Google’s
strategy for changing how its advertising technology products work. Because Google
would suffer competitive harm if this information were made public, Google requests that
this information remain under seal. Google has filed a redacted version of this document
Page 10 PageID#
that seals only this commercially sensitive information, as well as Google employees’
personal information.
● Exhibit 22 to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel. Portions of this email chain (on pages
LAZARD-DOJ-00000044 and -046) contain non-public analyses, by Google and its
financial advisor, of the advertising technology competitive landscape as it relates to
Google. Because Google would suffer competitive harm if this information were made
public, Google requests that this information remain under seal. Google has filed a
redacted version of this document that seals only this commercially sensitive information,
as well as Google employees’ personal information.
● Exhibit 25 to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel. The top comment in this document (on page
GOOG-DOJ-AT-01508261) contains non-public information about Google’s strategy for
its advertising technology business, including analysis of customers’ views and future
plans. Because Google would suffer competitive harm if this information were made
public, Google requests that this information remain under seal. That information should
also remain under seal because it reveals confidential customer information. Google has
filed a redacted version of this document that seals only this commercially sensitive
information, as well as Google employees’ personal information.
● Exhibit 27 to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel. Except for the portions relaying publicly
available information about industry developments and competitors (on pages GOOGDOJ-AT-01045139-143), this email chain contains non-public details and future strategy
related to Google’s advertising technology business, including detailed financial analyses
and customer information. Because Google would suffer competitive harm if this
information were made public, Google requests that this information remain under seal.
That information should also remain under seal because it reveals confidential customer
information. Google has filed a redacted version of this document that seals only this
commercially sensitive information, as well as Google employees’ personal information.
● Exhibit 28 to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and Exhibit C to Google’s Opposition. These
are excerpts from the deposition transcript of a Google employee, who was deposed
pursuant to DOJ’s CIDs issued under the ACPA. Portions of the transcript discuss nonpublic information about future product changes and strategy in the context of a
confidential Google project (on pages 169-178, 180). Because Google would suffer
competitive harm if this information were made public, Google requests that this
information remain under seal. Google has filed a redacted version of this document that
seals only this commercially sensitive information, as well as Google employees’ personal
information.
● Exhibit 31 to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel. This is an excerpt from the deposition transcript
of a Google employee, who was deposed pursuant to a CID issued by DOJ in accordance
with the ACPA. Portions of the transcript discuss confidential information about Google’s
decisionmaking processes, including by senior leadership, as well as non-public proposals
and transactions that were discussed by Google executives. Because Google would suffer
competitive harm if this information were made public, Google requests that this
information remain under seal. Google has filed a redacted version of this document that
Page 11 PageID#
seals only this commercially sensitive information, as well as Google employees’ personal
information.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, Google respectfully requests that the Court keep Google’s confidential
commercial information and employee personal information under seal, as described above, and
accept Google’s proposed redacted versions of the materials relating to Plaintiffs’ motion to
compel as the publicly filed versions.
Dated: July 17,
Respectfully submitted,
Eric Mahr (pro hac vice)
Andrew Ewalt (pro hac vice)
Julie Elmer (pro hac vice)
Lauren Kaplin (pro hac vice)
Jeanette Bayoumi (pro hac vice)
Claire Leonard (pro hac vice)
Sara Salem (pro hac vice)
Scott Eisman (pro hac vice)
Tyler Garrett (VSB # 94759)
FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS
DERINGER US LLP
700 13th Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC Telephone: (202) 777-Facsimile: (202) 777-eric.mahr@freshfields.com
/s/ Craig C. Reilly
Craig C. Reilly (VSB # 20942)
THE LAW OFFICE OF
CRAIG C. REILLY, ESQ.
209 Madison Street
Alexandria, VA Telephone: (703) 549-Facsimile: (703) 549-craig.reilly@ccreillylaw.com
Daniel Bitton (pro hac vice)
AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP
55 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA Telephone: (415) 490-Facsimile: (415) 490-dbitton@axinn.com
Bradley Justus (VSB # 80533)
Koren Wong-Ervin (pro hac vice)
AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP
1901 L Street, NW
Washington, DC
Karen L. Dunn (pro hac vice)
Jeannie H. Rhee (pro hac vice)
William A. Isaacson (pro hac vice)
Joseph Bial (pro hac vice)
Amy J. Mauser (pro hac vice)
Martha L. Goodman (pro hac vice)
Bryon P. Becker (VSB #93384)
Erica Spevack (pro hac vice)
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-Telephone: (202) 223-Facsimile (202) 223-kdunn@paulweiss.com
Meredith Dearborn (pro hac vice)
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
535 Mission Street, 24th Floor
Page 12 PageID#
Telephone: (202) 912-Facsimile: (202) 912-bjustus@axinn.com
San Francisco, CA Telephone: (646) 432-Facsimile: (202) 330-mdearnborn@paulweiss.com
Counsel for Defendant Google LLC
Page 13 PageID#
Attachment A
Google’s Sealing Request Regarding the Documents
at Issue in the Sealing Motions (ECF Nos. 217, 247, 258)
Document
Google’s Request
Action Taken by Google
Plaintiff’s Memorandum of
Law in Support of Their
Motion to Compel
Partially seal for personal
information of Google
employees and confidential
business information
Proposed redacted version
submitted herewith.
Appendix to Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel
Partially seal for personal
information of Google
employees
Proposed redacted version
submitted herewith.
Exhibit 1 to Plaintiffs’ Motion Partially seal for personal
to Compel
information of Google
employees
Proposed redacted version
submitted herewith.
Exhibit 2 to Plaintiffs’ Motion Unseal
to Compel
Version for unsealing
submitted herewith.
Exhibit 3 to Plaintiffs’ Motion Partially seal for personal
to Compel
information of Google
employees
Proposed redacted version
submitted herewith.
Exhibit 4 to Plaintiffs’ Motion Partially seal for personal
to Compel
information of Google
employees and confidential
business information
Proposed redacted version
submitted herewith.
Exhibit 5 to Plaintiffs’ Motion Seal
to Compel
Previously filed under seal.
ECF No. 219-5.
Exhibit 6 to Plaintiffs’ Motion Partially seal for personal
to Compel
information of Google
employees and confidential
business information
Proposed redacted version
submitted herewith.
Exhibit 7 to Plaintiffs’ Motion Partially seal for personal
to Compel
information of Google
employees and confidential
business information
Proposed redacted version
submitted herewith.
Exhibit 8 to Plaintiffs’ Motion Partially seal for personal
to Compel
information of Google
employees and confidential
Proposed redacted version
submitted herewith.
1
Page 14 PageID#
Document
Google’s Request
Action Taken by Google
business information
Exhibit 9 to Plaintiffs’ Motion Partially seal for personal
to Compel
information of Google
employees and confidential
business information
Proposed redacted version
submitted herewith.
Exhibit 10 to Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel
Partially seal for personal
information of Google
employees and confidential
business information
Proposed redacted version
submitted herewith.
Exhibit 11 to Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel
Unseal
Version for unsealing
submitted herewith.
Exhibit 12 to Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel
Partially seal for personal
information of Google
employees
Proposed redacted version
submitted herewith.
Exhibit 13 to Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel
Partially seal for personal
information of Google
employees
Proposed redacted version
submitted herewith.
Exhibit 14 to Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel
Partially seal for personal
information of Google
employees and confidential
business information
Proposed redacted version
submitted herewith.
Exhibit 15 to Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel
Unseal
Version for unsealing
submitted herewith.
Exhibit 16 to Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel
Unseal
Version for unsealing
submitted herewith.
Exhibit 17 to Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel
Unseal
Version for unsealing
submitted herewith.
Exhibit 18 to Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel
Partially seal for personal
information of Google
employees and confidential
business information
Proposed redacted version
submitted herewith.
Exhibit 19 to Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel
Partially seal for personal
information of Google
employees
Proposed redacted version
submitted herewith.
2
Page 15 PageID#
Document
Google’s Request
Action Taken by Google
Exhibit 20 to Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel
Seal
Previously filed under seal.
ECF No. 219-20.
Exhibit 21 to Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel
Partially seal for personal
information of Google
employees and confidential
business information
Proposed redacted version
submitted herewith.
Exhibit 22 to Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel
Partially seal for personal
information of Google
employees and confidential
business information
Proposed redacted version
submitted herewith.
Exhibit 23 to Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel
Seal
Previously filed under seal.
ECF No. 219-23.
Exhibit 24 to Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel
Seal
Previously filed under seal.
ECF No. 219-24.
Exhibit 25 to Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel
Partially seal for personal
information of Google
employees and confidential
business information
Proposed redacted version
submitted herewith.
Exhibit 26 to Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel
Seal
Previously filed under seal.
ECF No. 219-26.
Exhibit 27 to Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel
Partially seal for personal
information of Google
employees and confidential
business information
Proposed redacted version
submitted herewith.
Exhibit 28 to Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel
Partially seal for personal
information of Google
employees and confidential
business information
Proposed redacted version
submitted herewith.
Exhibit 29 to Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel
Partially seal for personal
information of Google
employees
Proposed redacted version
submitted herewith.
Exhibit 30 to Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel
Partially seal for personal
information of Google
employees
Proposed redacted version
submitted herewith.
Exhibit 31 to Plaintiffs’
Partially seal for personal
Proposed redacted version
3
Page 16 PageID#
Document
Google’s Request
Action Taken by Google
Motion to Compel
information of Google
employees and confidential
business information
submitted herewith.
Google’s Memorandum of
Law in Opposition to
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel
Partially seal for personal
information of Google
employees
Google has already filed a
version of its brief that only
redacts personal information.
ECF No. 245.
Exhibit A to Google’s
Opposition to Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel
Unseal
Version for unsealing
submitted herewith.
Exhibit B to Google’s
Opposition to Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel
Partially seal for personal
information of Google
employees and confidential
business information
Proposed redacted version
submitted herewith.
Exhibit C to Google’s
Opposition to Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel
Partially seal for personal
information of Google
employees and confidential
business information
Proposed redacted version
submitted herewith.
Plaintiff’s Reply
Memorandum of Law in
Support of Their Motion to
Compel
Partially seal for personal
information of Google
employees
Proposed redacted version
submitted herewith.
Appendix to Reply in Support Partially seal for personal
of Their Motion to Compel
information of Google
employees
Proposed redacted version
submitted herewith.
Exhibit 1 to Plaintiffs’ Reply
in Support of Their Motion to
Compel
Partially seal for personal
information of Google
employees and confidential
business information
Proposed redacted version
submitted herewith.
Exhibit 2 to Plaintiffs’ Reply
in Support of Their Motion to
Compel
Partially seal for personal
information of Google
employees and confidential
business information
Proposed redacted version
submitted herewith.
Exhibit 3 to Plaintiffs’ Reply
in Support of Their Motion to
Compel
Seal
Previously filed under seal.
ECF No. 260-3.
4
Page 17 PageID#
Document
Google’s Request
Action Taken by Google
Exhibit 4 to Plaintiffs’ Reply
in Support of Their Motion to
Compel
Seal
Previously filed under seal.
ECF No. 260-4.
Exhibit 5 to Plaintiffs’ Reply
in Support of Their Motion to
Compel
Partially seal for personal
information of Google
employees and confidential
business information
Proposed redacted version
submitted herewith.
Exhibit 6 to Plaintiffs’ Reply
in Support of Their Motion to
Compel
Partially seal for personal
information of Google
employees and confidential
business information
Proposed redacted version
submitted herewith.
5
Space
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
 

Non-Government Works Copyright © 2001-2024 Think Computer Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

About   Privacy   Security   Contact Us

PlainSite
Sign Up
Need Password Help?