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 portions of its Opposition to the United States’ Motion for Partial Judgment on the
Pleadings or, in the Alternative, a Protective Order, and certain exhibits referenced therein (Docket
no. 370). These exhibits and the redactions in the brief contain information designated by Plaintiff
the United States and third-party News Corp as confidential or highly confidential under the
parties’ protective order (Dkt. 203 ¶ 20). The exhibits and the unredacted brief have been filed
electronically using the sealed filing events at Docket no. 369, the redacted brief and public
versions of the exhibits are filed at Docket no. 368.
INTRODUCTION
Google’s Opposition references, among other exhibits: (i) documents produced by the
United States as part of its investigative file and during the course of discovery in this matter and
designated by the United States and third-party News Corp as confidential or highly confidential;
and (ii) transcripts of depositions of Federal Agency Advertiser (“FAA”) employees designatedPage 2 PageID#
by the United States as highly confidential. Pursuant to paragraph 20 of the Protective Order (Dkt.
203), through this motion Google informs the Court of the confidentiality designations of these
materials and requests that the Court seal these exhibits from the public docket, and maintain the
redacted brief on the public docket, in order to provide Plaintiff and third-party New Corp
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.
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 confidential or highly confidential by the United States or
News Corp, a non-party to this case, Google has filed the present motion in accordance with itsPage 3 PageID#
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 Docket no. and permit the redacted version of Google’s brief and public versions of the exhibts to remain on
the public docket at Docket no. 368.
Dated: August 31,
Respectfully submitted,
/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
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
Counsel for Defendant Google LLC
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 371 Filed 08/31/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 5938
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 portions of its Opposition to the United States’ Motion for Partial Judgment on the
Pleadings or, in the Alternative, a Protective Order, and certain exhibits referenced therein (Docket
no. 370). These exhibits and the redactions in the brief contain information designated by Plaintiff
the United States and third-party News Corp as confidential or highly confidential under the
parties’ protective order (Dkt. 203 ¶ 20). The exhibits and the unredacted brief have been filed
electronically using the sealed filing events at Docket no. 369, the redacted brief and public
versions of the exhibits are filed at Docket no. 368.
INTRODUCTION
Google’s Opposition references, among other exhibits: (i) documents produced by the
United States as part of its investigative file and during the course of discovery in this matter and
designated by the United States and third-party News Corp as confidential or highly confidential;
and (ii) transcripts of depositions of Federal Agency Advertiser (“FAA”) employees designated
PDF Page 3
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 371 Filed 08/31/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 5939
by the United States as highly confidential. Pursuant to paragraph 20 of the Protective Order (Dkt.
203), through this motion Google informs the Court of the confidentiality designations of these
materials and requests that the Court seal these exhibits from the public docket, and maintain the
redacted brief on the public docket, in order to provide Plaintiff and third-party New Corp
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.
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 confidential or highly confidential by the United States or
News Corp, a non-party to this case, Google has filed the present motion in accordance with its
PDF Page 4
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 371 Filed 08/31/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 5940
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 Docket no. 369
and permit the redacted version of Google’s brief and public versions of the exhibts to remain on
the public docket at Docket no. 368.
Dated: August 31, 2023
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Craig C. Reilly
Craig C. Reilly (VSB # 20942)
THE LAW OFFICE OF
CRAIG C. REILLY, ESQ.
209 Madison Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Telephone: (703) 549-5354
Facsimile: (703) 549-5355
craig.reilly@ccreillylaw.com
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
Counsel for Defendant Google LLC
Back to 
