ORDER granting in part and denying in part [217] Motion to Seal. Given these rulings and defendant's filing of certain information in the public record, no further action is required by the parties or the Clerk's Office to satisfy this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 07/20/2023. SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS. (wgar, )
Page 1 PageID#
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,et a/.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. I:23cv0108(LMB/JFA)
GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter is before the court on plaintiffs' motion to seal an unredacted version of their
memorandum in support of plaintiffs' motion for in camera inspection and to compel production
of documents wrongfully withheld as privileged, along with the accompanying appendix and
exhibits 1-31. (Docket no. 217). As stated in plaintiffs' memorandum,the motion to seal was
filed because the redacted portions ofthe memorandum and the appendix and exhibits contain
information that was designated as confidential by defendant. (Docket no. 221). As required by
Local Civil Rule 5, defendant, as the party designating the information as confidential, filed a
response to the motion. (Docket no. 244). After reviewing the motion, defendant's initial
response, and the materials that were being requested to be filed under seal, the court issued an
order providing some guidance to the parties concerning the filing of documents under seal and
requested that defendant review the materials subject to this motion and provide the court with
an additional response. (Docket no. 280). On July 17, 2023, defendant filed an additional
response as requested by the court. (Docket no. 284).'
'The court acknowledges and appreciates defendant's time and attention in preparing this additional
response and the approach taken in following the court's guidance concerning these materials. Page 2 PageID#
In defendant's additional response, it has filed in the public record a substantially less
redacted version of plaintiffs' memorandum in support of their motion(Docket no. 284-2); a
redacted version ofthe appendix (Docket no. 284-1); unredacted copies ofexhibits 2,11,15,16,
and 17; and redacted versions of exhibits 1,3,4,6,7, 8,9,10,12,13,14,18,19,21,22, 25,27,
28, 29, 30, and 31. (Docket nos. 284-3-284-28). Defendant seeks to have exhibits 5, 20,23,
24, and 26 remain under seal.
The court has reviewed the limited redactions to plaintiffs memorandum in support
proposed by defendant and finds those proposed redactions are appropriate. As discussed in the
court's earlier order(Docket no. 280), at this time the court will allow the names of defendant's
employees to be redacted in deference to the procedures being followed in the New York action.
Having reviewed the substantive redactions on pages 18-22 ofthe memorandum,the court finds
that they appear to contain defendant's confidential business information and, that for the
purposes of this discovery motion, defendant's additional response provides adequate support to
overcome the common law right of access to that information.
The court has reviewed the proposed redactions to the appendix filed in support of
plaintiffs' motion(Docket no. 284-1) and finds that the redacted information concerns the
personal information relating to defendant's employees and it may remain under seal at this time.
The court has reviewed the proposed redactions to exhibits 1, 3,4,6, 7, 8,9, 10, 12, 13,
14,18, 19, 21,22,25,27, 28,29, 30, and 31 and finds that the redactions to exhibits 1, 3, 12, 13,
19,29, and 30 are limited to personal information relating to defendant's employees and it may
remain under seal at this time. As to exhibit 4,the court finds the redacted portions of that
exhibit contain defendant's confidential business information and, that for the purposes ofthis
discovery motion, defendant's additional response provides adequate support to overcome thePage 3 PageID#
common law right of access to that information. As to exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 18, 21,22,25,
27,28, and 31,the court finds that the redacted portions to those exhibits contain personal
information relating to defendant's employees and defendant's confidential business information.
The redactions in those exhibits containing personal information relating to defendant's
employees may remain under seal at this time for the reasons discussed above. As to the
redactions containing defendant's confidential business information, defendant has provided
adequate support to overcome the common law right of access to that information.
The court has reviewed the information in exhibits 5, 20, 23,24, and 26 that defendant
has requested remain under seal. These five exhibits primarily contain defendant's confidential
business information and, in some instances, personal information relating to defendant's
employees. Having reviewed the information in these exhibits, the court finds that they contain
defendant's confidential business information and, that for the purposes ofthis discovery motion,
defendant's additional response provides adequate support to overcome the common law right of
access to the information contained in those exhibits.
For the reasons stated above, this motion to seal is granted in part and denied in part.
Defendant has filed in the public record unredacted versions of exhibits 2, 11, 15, 16, and 17 and
the motion to seal those exhibits is denied. As to exhibits 5,20,23,24, and 26,the motion to
seal is granted. As to memorandum in support and exhibits 1, 3,4,6,7, 8,9, 10,12,13, 14,18,
19, 21,22,25,27, 28, 29, 30, and 31,the motion to seal is granted as to the redacted portions
contained in the memorandum and exhibits to defendant's additional response, and is denied as
to the remaining information that has now been filed in public record. Given these rulings andPage 4 PageID#
defendant's filing of certain information in the public record, no further action is required by the
parties or the Clerk's Office to satisfy this order.^
Entered this 20th day of July, 2023.
/s/_
John F. Anderson
United States Magistrate Judge
John F. Anderson
United States Magistrate Judge
Alexandria, Virginia
^ Allowing any information to be filed under seal under the common law standard applied in this discovery motion
has no precedential significance in any motion to seal under the First Amendment standard.
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 285 Filed 07/20/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 3406
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,et a/.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. I:23cv0108(LMB/JFA)
GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter is before the court on plaintiffs' motion to seal an unredacted version of their
memorandum in support of plaintiffs' motion for in camera inspection and to compel production
of documents wrongfully withheld as privileged, along with the accompanying appendix and
exhibits 1-31. (Docket no. 217). As stated in plaintiffs' memorandum,the motion to seal was
filed because the redacted portions ofthe memorandum and the appendix and exhibits contain
information that was designated as confidential by defendant. (Docket no. 221). As required by
Local Civil Rule 5, defendant, as the party designating the information as confidential, filed a
response to the motion. (Docket no. 244). After reviewing the motion, defendant's initial
response, and the materials that were being requested to be filed under seal, the court issued an
order providing some guidance to the parties concerning the filing of documents under seal and
requested that defendant review the materials subject to this motion and provide the court with
an additional response. (Docket no. 280). On July 17, 2023, defendant filed an additional
response as requested by the court. (Docket no. 284).'
'The court acknowledges and appreciates defendant's time and attention in preparing this additional
response and the approach taken in following the court's guidance concerning these materials.
1
PDF Page 3
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 285 Filed 07/20/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 3407
In defendant's additional response, it has filed in the public record a substantially less
redacted version of plaintiffs' memorandum in support of their motion(Docket no. 284-2); a
redacted version ofthe appendix (Docket no. 284-1); unredacted copies ofexhibits 2,11,15,16,
and 17; and redacted versions of exhibits 1,3,4,6,7, 8,9,10,12,13,14,18,19,21,22, 25,27,
28, 29, 30, and 31. (Docket nos. 284-3-284-28). Defendant seeks to have exhibits 5, 20,23,
24, and 26 remain under seal.
The court has reviewed the limited redactions to plaintiffs memorandum in support
proposed by defendant and finds those proposed redactions are appropriate. As discussed in the
court's earlier order(Docket no. 280), at this time the court will allow the names of defendant's
employees to be redacted in deference to the procedures being followed in the New York action.
Having reviewed the substantive redactions on pages 18-22 ofthe memorandum,the court finds
that they appear to contain defendant's confidential business information and, that for the
purposes of this discovery motion, defendant's additional response provides adequate support to
overcome the common law right of access to that information.
The court has reviewed the proposed redactions to the appendix filed in support of
plaintiffs' motion(Docket no. 284-1) and finds that the redacted information concerns the
personal information relating to defendant's employees and it may remain under seal at this time.
The court has reviewed the proposed redactions to exhibits 1, 3,4,6, 7, 8,9, 10, 12, 13,
14,18, 19, 21,22,25,27, 28,29, 30, and 31 and finds that the redactions to exhibits 1, 3, 12, 13,
19,29, and 30 are limited to personal information relating to defendant's employees and it may
remain under seal at this time. As to exhibit 4,the court finds the redacted portions of that
exhibit contain defendant's confidential business information and, that for the purposes ofthis
discovery motion, defendant's additional response provides adequate support to overcome the
PDF Page 4
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 285 Filed 07/20/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID# 3408
common law right of access to that information. As to exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 18, 21,22,25,
27,28, and 31,the court finds that the redacted portions to those exhibits contain personal
information relating to defendant's employees and defendant's confidential business information.
The redactions in those exhibits containing personal information relating to defendant's
employees may remain under seal at this time for the reasons discussed above. As to the
redactions containing defendant's confidential business information, defendant has provided
adequate support to overcome the common law right of access to that information.
The court has reviewed the information in exhibits 5, 20, 23,24, and 26 that defendant
has requested remain under seal. These five exhibits primarily contain defendant's confidential
business information and, in some instances, personal information relating to defendant's
employees. Having reviewed the information in these exhibits, the court finds that they contain
defendant's confidential business information and, that for the purposes ofthis discovery motion,
defendant's additional response provides adequate support to overcome the common law right of
access to the information contained in those exhibits.
For the reasons stated above, this motion to seal is granted in part and denied in part.
Defendant has filed in the public record unredacted versions of exhibits 2, 11, 15, 16, and 17 and
the motion to seal those exhibits is denied. As to exhibits 5,20,23,24, and 26,the motion to
seal is granted. As to memorandum in support and exhibits 1, 3,4,6,7, 8,9, 10,12,13, 14,18,
19, 21,22,25,27, 28, 29, 30, and 31,the motion to seal is granted as to the redacted portions
contained in the memorandum and exhibits to defendant's additional response, and is denied as
to the remaining information that has now been filed in public record. Given these rulings and
PDF Page 5
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 285 Filed 07/20/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID# 3409
defendant's filing of certain information in the public record, no further action is required by the
parties or the Clerk's Office to satisfy this order.^
Entered this 20th day of July, 2023.
/s/_
John F. Anderson
United States Magistrate Judge
John F. Anderson
United States Magistrate Judge
Alexandria, Virginia
^ Allowing any information to be filed under seal under the common law standard applied in this discovery motion
has no precedential significance in any motion to seal under the First Amendment standard.
Back to 
