Page 1 PageID#
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
UNITED STATES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
No: 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT GOOGLE LLC’S MOTION TO SEAL
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5, Defendant Google LLC (“Google”), through its
undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully submits the instant memorandum of law in support of its
motion to seal exhibits 1-4 attached to the Memorandum of Law in Support of Google’s Motion
for In Camera Review. These exhibits contain information designated by Plaintiff the United
States as privileged, confidential, or highly confidential under the parties’ protective order (Dkt.
203 ¶¶ 12, 20).
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to paragraphs 12(c) and 20 of the Protective Order (Dkt. 203), through this motion
Google informs the Court of the privilege designations of these materials and requests that the
Court seal these exhibits from the public docket in order to provide Plaintiff sufficient time to
provide the Court with support for the need to seal these documents. But for the requirements of
the Protective Order, Google would not seek to seal these documents.Page 2 PageID#
ARGUMENT
Public access to judicial records is “protected both by the common law and the First
Amendment.” Stone v. Univ. of Md. Med. Sys. Corp., 855 F.2d 178, 180 (4th Cir. 1988). “The
common law presumes a right of the public to inspect and copy ‘all judicial records and
documents.’” Id. (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). The
common law presumption in favor of public access can be overcome only by a showing that a
litigant has “some significant interest that outweighs the presumption.” Rushford v. New Yorker
Magazine, Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 253 (4th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, before ordering the sealing of a
document, a district court must “(1) provide public notice of the request to seal and allow interested
parties a reasonable opportunity to object, (2) consider less drastic alternatives to sealing the
document[], and (3) provide specific reasons and factual findings supporting its decision to seal
the document[] and for rejecting the alternatives.” Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288, (4th Cir. 2000); see also Local Civ. R. 5(C).
Google does not believe the information referenced in its memorandum or the exhibits
cited therein is of a type that outweighs the presumption in favor of public access. Nonetheless,
because the material was designated as privileged, confidential, or highly confidential by the
United States, Google has filed the present motion in accordance with its obligations under
paragraph 20 of the Protective Order. As stated in the notice filed concurrently with this
memorandum, any interested member of the public and any other party may indicate their position
on the motion.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Google respectfully requests that the Court seal Dkts. 301 &
303.Page 3 PageID#
Dated: August 18,
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)
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
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)
AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP
1901 L Street, NW
Washington, DC Telephone: (202) 912-Facsimile: (202) 912-bjustus@axinn.com
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
San Francisco, CA Telephone: (646) 432-Facsimile: (202) 330-mdearnborn@paulweiss.com
Counsel for Defendant Google LLC
OF
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 309 Filed 08/18/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 4480
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
UNITED STATES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
No: 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT GOOGLE LLC’S MOTION TO SEAL
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5, Defendant Google LLC (“Google”), through its
undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully submits the instant memorandum of law in support of its
motion to seal exhibits 1-4 attached to the Memorandum of Law in Support of Google’s Motion
for In Camera Review. These exhibits contain information designated by Plaintiff the United
States as privileged, confidential, or highly confidential under the parties’ protective order (Dkt.
203 ¶¶ 12, 20).
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to paragraphs 12(c) and 20 of the Protective Order (Dkt. 203), through this motion
Google informs the Court of the privilege designations of these materials and requests that the
Court seal these exhibits from the public docket in order to provide Plaintiff sufficient time to
provide the Court with support for the need to seal these documents. But for the requirements of
the Protective Order, Google would not seek to seal these documents.
PDF Page 3
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 309 Filed 08/18/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 4481
ARGUMENT
Public access to judicial records is “protected both by the common law and the First
Amendment.” Stone v. Univ. of Md. Med. Sys. Corp., 855 F.2d 178, 180 (4th Cir. 1988). “The
common law presumes a right of the public to inspect and copy ‘all judicial records and
documents.’” Id. (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). The
common law presumption in favor of public access can be overcome only by a showing that a
litigant has “some significant interest that outweighs the presumption.” Rushford v. New Yorker
Magazine, Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 253 (4th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, before ordering the sealing of a
document, a district court must “(1) provide public notice of the request to seal and allow interested
parties a reasonable opportunity to object, (2) consider less drastic alternatives to sealing the
document[], and (3) provide specific reasons and factual findings supporting its decision to seal
the document[] and for rejecting the alternatives.” Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288, 302
(4th Cir. 2000); see also Local Civ. R. 5(C).
Google does not believe the information referenced in its memorandum or the exhibits
cited therein is of a type that outweighs the presumption in favor of public access. Nonetheless,
because the material was designated as privileged, confidential, or highly confidential by the
United States, Google has filed the present motion in accordance with its obligations under
paragraph 20 of the Protective Order. As stated in the notice filed concurrently with this
memorandum, any interested member of the public and any other party may indicate their position
on the motion.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Google respectfully requests that the Court seal Dkts. 301 &
303.
PDF Page 4
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 309 Filed 08/18/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 4482
Dated: August 18, 2023
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)
Tyler Garrett (VSB # 94759)
FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS
DERINGER US LLP
700 13th Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 777-4500
Facsimile: (202) 777-4555
eric.mahr@freshfields.com
/s/ Craig C. Reilly
Craig C. Reilly (VSB # 20942)
THE
LAW
OFFICE
CRAIG C. REILLY, ESQ.
209 Madison Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Telephone: (703) 549-5354
Facsimile: (703) 549-5355
craig.reilly@ccreillylaw.com
Daniel Bitton (pro hac vice)
AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP
55 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 490-2000
Facsimile: (415) 490-2001
dbitton@axinn.com
Bradley Justus (VSB # 80533)
AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP
1901 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 912-4700
Facsimile: (202) 912-4701
bjustus@axinn.com
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 20006-1047
Telephone: (202) 223-7300
Facsimile (202) 223-7420
kdunn@paulweiss.com
Meredith Dearborn (pro hac vice)
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
535 Mission Street, 24th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (646) 432-5100
Facsimile: (202) 330-5908
mdearnborn@paulweiss.com
Counsel for Defendant Google LLC
OF
Back to 
