ORDER granting in part and denying in part [247] 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 al
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. I:23cv0108(LMB/JFA)
GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter is before the court on defendant's motion to seal an unredacted version of its
opposition to plaintiffs' motion for in camera inspection and to compel production of documents
wrongfully withheld as privileged, along with the exhibits A-C. (Docket no. 247). Defendant
filed a memorandum in support ofthis motion to seal(Docket no. 248)along with a redacted
version of its opposition in the public record (Docket no. 245). After reviewing the motion and
defendant's initial memorandum, 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).
In defendant's additional response, it has filed in the public record a copy of exhibit A
along with redacted versions of exhibits B and C. (Docket nos. 284-31-284-33). The redactions
in defendant's opposition are limited to personal information of defendant's employees and they
may remain under seal at this time in deference to the procedure being following in the New
York action. Exhibit A has now been filed in the public record without any redactions. As to Page 2 PageID#
exhibits B and C,defendant has filed in the public record redacted versions of those two exhibits.
Having reviewed the information that has been redacted from the public version of these
exhibits, the court finds those proposed redactions are appropriate. The information redacted in
these two deposition transcripts contain the names of defendant's employees and defendant's
confidential business information. For the purposes of this discovery motion, defendant's
additional response provides adequate support to overcome the common law right of access to
defendant's confidential business information.
For the reasons stated above, this motion to seal is granted in part and denied in part. The
motion to seal an unredacted version of the opposition is granted. Defendant has filed in the
public record exhibit A and the motion to seal that document is denied. As to exhibits B and C,
the motion to seal is granted as to the redacted portions contained in the exhibits accompanying
the additional response, and is denied as to the remaining information that has now been filed in
the public record. 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.'
Entered this 20th day of July, 2023.
/S/
John F. Anderson
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 286 Filed 07/20/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 3410
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,et al
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. I:23cv0108(LMB/JFA)
GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter is before the court on defendant's motion to seal an unredacted version of its
opposition to plaintiffs' motion for in camera inspection and to compel production of documents
wrongfully withheld as privileged, along with the exhibits A-C. (Docket no. 247). Defendant
filed a memorandum in support ofthis motion to seal(Docket no. 248)along with a redacted
version of its opposition in the public record (Docket no. 245). After reviewing the motion and
defendant's initial memorandum, 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).
In defendant's additional response, it has filed in the public record a copy of exhibit A
along with redacted versions of exhibits B and C. (Docket nos. 284-31-284-33). The redactions
in defendant's opposition are limited to personal information of defendant's employees and they
may remain under seal at this time in deference to the procedure being following in the New
York action. Exhibit A has now been filed in the public record without any redactions. As to
1
PDF Page 3
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 286 Filed 07/20/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID# 3411
exhibits B and C,defendant has filed in the public record redacted versions of those two exhibits.
Having reviewed the information that has been redacted from the public version of these
exhibits, the court finds those proposed redactions are appropriate. The information redacted in
these two deposition transcripts contain the names of defendant's employees and defendant's
confidential business information. For the purposes of this discovery motion, defendant's
additional response provides adequate support to overcome the common law right of access to
defendant's confidential business information.
For the reasons stated above, this motion to seal is granted in part and denied in part. The
motion to seal an unredacted version of the opposition is granted. Defendant has filed in the
public record exhibit A and the motion to seal that document is denied. As to exhibits B and C,
the motion to seal is granted as to the redacted portions contained in the exhibits accompanying
the additional response, and is denied as to the remaining information that has now been filed in
the public record. 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.'
Entered this 20th day of July, 2023.
/S/
John F. Anderson
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 
