Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04980/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04980-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

Case No.13-CV-04980-LHK 

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CODY BAKER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

YAHOO! INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-04980-LHK 

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS AND 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD

Re: Dkt. Nos. 60, 77, 89, 95, 96, 97, 98

Before the Court are administrative motions to seal brought by Plaintiffs Rebecca Abrams, 

Cody Baker, Halima Nobles, and Brian Pincus (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), ECF Nos. 60, 89, and 

by Defendant Yahoo! Inc. (“Defendant” or “Yahoo”), ECF Nos. 77, 96. The parties seek to seal 

briefing and exhibits filed by the parties in connection with Plaintiffs’ motion for class 

certification, ECF No. 60. Also before the Court is Defendant’s motion for leave to supplement 

the record, and the parties’ stipulation to allow Defendant to supplement the record. ECF Nos. 95–

98. The Court first addresses the parties’ sealing motions and then turns to Defendant’s motion 

and the parties’ stipulation.

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 

Case 5:13-cv-04980-LHK Document 108 Filed 05/27/15 Page 1 of 18
2

Case No.13-CV-04980-LHK 

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a strong

presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of 

overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings” that 

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana, 447 

F.3d at 1178–79. Compelling reasons justifying the sealing of court records generally exist “when 

such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to 

gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secret.” 

Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of 

records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will 

not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. Dispositive motions include “motions 

for summary judgment.” Id.

Records attached to nondispositive motions are not subject to the strong presumption of 

access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Because the documents attached to nondispositive 

motions “are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” 

parties moving to seal must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 1179–80 (internal quotation marks omitted). The “good cause” 

standard requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the 

information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 

1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad 

allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not 

suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

In general, motions for class certification are considered nondispositive. See In re HighTech Emp. Antitrust Litig., No. 11-CV-02509-LHK, 2013 WL 5486230, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 

2013) (“As Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification is a non-dispositive motion, the Court finds 

that the parties need only demonstrate ‘good cause’ in order to support their requests to seal.”).

Case 5:13-cv-04980-LHK Document 108 Filed 05/27/15 Page 2 of 18
3

Case No.13-CV-04980-LHK 

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The Court therefore applies the “good cause” standard to the parties’ requests.

Pursuant to Rule 26(c), a trial court has broad discretion to permit sealing of court 

documents for, inter alia, the protection of “a trade secret or other confidential research, 

development, or commercial information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). The Ninth Circuit has 

adopted the definition of “trade secrets” set forth in the Restatement of Torts, holding that “[a] 

trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is 

used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over 

competitors who do not know or use it.” Clark v. Bunker, 453 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1972) 

(quoting Restatement (First) of Torts § 757 cmt. b). “Generally [a trade secret] relates to the 

production of goods. . . . It may, however, relate to the sale of goods or to other operations in the 

business. . . .” Id. (ellipses in original). In addition, the Supreme Court has recognized that sealing 

may be justified to prevent judicial documents from being used “as sources of business 

information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.

In addition, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established 

by Civil Local Rule 79-5. Pursuant to that rule, a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request 

that establishes the document is “sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or 

otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(b). “The request must be narrowly 

tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Id.

Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), moreover, requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed order that 

is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” and that “lists in table format each 

document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” as well as an “unredacted version of the 

document” that “indicate[s], by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document 

that have been omitted from the redacted version.” Id. R. 79-5(d)(1). “Within 4 days of the filing 

of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as 

required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” 

Id. R. 79-5(e)(1).

Below, the Court applies the “good cause” standard to the parties’ requests to seal 

Case 5:13-cv-04980-LHK Document 108 Filed 05/27/15 Page 3 of 18
4

Case No.13-CV-04980-LHK 

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

documents in connection with Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. With this standard in mind, 

the Court rules on the instant motions as follows:

Motion 

to Seal

Standard Document Ruling

60 Good 

Cause Plaintiffs’ Memorandum 

of Points and Authorities 

In Support of Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Class 

Certification

GRANTED as to the following proposed 

redactions, and otherwise DENIED with 

prejudice: 

 Page 3, lines: 2-6, 28

 Page 4, lines 1, 11-13,15-28

 Page 5, lines 6-7, 9-16, 20, 23, 27–28

 Page 6, lines 1-4, 6 (technology name 

only), 9 (technology name only), 11 

(technology name only), 12, 23-28 

 Page 7, lines 1-2, 7-8, 11-12, 14 -17, 22 

(technology name only), 26 (technology 

name only)

 Page 8, lines 9-13, 14 (excluding “these 

commercial processes”), 15-18

 Page 9, lines 1-4

 Page 15, lines 21-23

Case 5:13-cv-04980-LHK Document 108 Filed 05/27/15 Page 4 of 18
5

Case No.13-CV-04980-LHK 

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Motion 

to Seal

Standard Document Ruling

60 Good 

Cause

Declaration of R. 

Sherwood, Ex. 1

GRANTED as to the following proposed 

redactions:

 Page 2, Table of contents subheadings for 

Pages 8 and 9;

 Page 6, ¶¶ 9, 11, 12, fn. 3-4;

 Page 7, ¶¶ 12-13, fn. 7, 8;

 Page 8, ¶ 15, fn. 13;

 Page 9, ¶¶ 17-19, fn. 15-17;

 Page 10, ¶¶ 19-20, fn. 21, 23-24; and

Page 11, ¶¶ 21-22.

GRANTED as to:

 Page 6, ¶ 10, the paragraph with the 

exception of the first and sixth 

sentences.

 Page 6, ¶ 12, the paragraph with the 

exception of the first and last sentences.

 Page 8, ¶ 14, only as to the names of the 

technology in the second sentence.

 Page 8, ¶ 16, only as to the first 

sentence.

Otherwise DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.

Case 5:13-cv-04980-LHK Document 108 Filed 05/27/15 Page 5 of 18
6

Case No.13-CV-04980-LHK 

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Motion 

to Seal

Standard Document Ruling

60 Good 

Cause

Declaration of Daniel C. 

Girard, Ex. 1, Deposition 

Transcript of Amir Doron

GRANTED as to the following proposed 

redactions in ECF No. 69: 

 4:16-19

 5:4-10, 12, 14, 24-25

 6:7-8, 19-20

 11:8

 12:8,12

 13:2

 16:12-13, 20-22, 24-25

 17:16, 23

 18:17-25

 19:1-2, 19

 20:2-4

 23:4-12, 24

 24:1-3, 10-18

 25:1-8

 26:19-25

 27:10-23

 29:1-25

 30:1-25

 31:1-25

 32:1-19

 33:25

 34:1-4, 10-25

 35:1-6

 36:22 (technology name only)

 37:1-4

 37:9 (technology name only), 10 (same), 

18 (same)

 38:6-21, 24-25

 39:1-2, 5-18, 22-24

 40:3-20, 22-23

 41:12-15

 42:18-25

 43:1-5, 12-25

 44:1, 5-7, 15-25

 45:1-14, 25

 46:1-9, 11-25

 47:1-4, 20-25

 48:1, 9-21

 49:2-16, 20-25

 50:1-25, 

Case 5:13-cv-04980-LHK Document 108 Filed 05/27/15 Page 6 of 18
7

Case No.13-CV-04980-LHK 

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Motion 

to Seal

Standard Document Ruling

Declaration of Daniel C. 

Girard, Ex. 1, Deposition 

Transcript of Amir Doron

[CONTINUED]

 51:1-19,21-25

 52:1-7, 12-25

 53:1, 3-5, 8-12, 15-25

 54:1-14, 16-25

 55:1-25

 56:1-25

 57:1-25

 58:1-2, 10-22

 59:1-7, 16-17

 60:2-12, 16-25

 61:1-25

 62:1-8, 13-25

 63:2, 4-20, 22-24

 64:1-7, 11-12, 22-24

 65:11-24

 66:3-25

 67:1-25

 68: 1-17, 19-21, 24-25

 69:1-25

 70:8-25

 71:2-6, 11-14

 72:9-10, 18-25

 73:1-20, 25

 74:1-8, 13-1524-25

 75:1-5

 77:17

 78:8, 14

 79:11, 14-23

 80:2-4, 8-12, 15-21

 81:1-11, 15-16, 18-25

 82:1-6, 16-25

 83:1-21, 24-25

 84:1-5, 10-23

 85:1-2, 5-20, 24-25

 86:1-16, 20-22, 25

 87:1-3,7-20, 23-25

 88:1-8, 16-24

 89:1-5, 20-25

 90:1-14

 91:4-7, 14-25

 92:1-4, 6-9, 12-25

 93:1-22, 24

Case 5:13-cv-04980-LHK Document 108 Filed 05/27/15 Page 7 of 18
8

Case No.13-CV-04980-LHK 

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Motion 

to Seal

Standard Document Ruling

Declaration of Daniel C. 

Girard, Ex. 1, Deposition 

Transcript of Amir Doron 

[CONTINUED]

 95:5-25

 96:1-15, 24-25

 97:1-25

 98:1-5, 12-13, 16-25

 99:1-2, 7-25

 100:1-11, 14-25

 101:3-15

 102:17-25

 103:1-16, 18-23

 105:21-25

 106:1-11

 108:12, 15-25

 109:1-12, 15-24

 110:2-6, 11-18

 111:1, 8-11, 22-25

 112:1-10, 17-25

 113:1-2, 6-18

 114:10-17, 19-20

 115:4-9, 25

 116:1, 4-11, 17, 20, 22,

 117:14-16, 18 (technology name only), 

21-23

 118:2-24, 25 (technology name only)

 119:5 (last word only), 18-25

 120:1-4, 6, 18-25

 121:1-13, 20-25

 122:1-25

 123:18-20, 23-25

 124:1-25

 125:1-9, 11-21

 126:6-21

 128:2, 19-25

 129:1-10, 14-15

 130:1-2, 6-9

Otherwise DENIED with prejudice.

60 Good 

Cause Declaration of Daniel C. 

Girard, Ex. 4

GRANTED.

60 Good 

Cause Declaration of Daniel C. 

Girard, Ex. 5

GRANTED.

Case 5:13-cv-04980-LHK Document 108 Filed 05/27/15 Page 8 of 18
9

Case No.13-CV-04980-LHK 

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Motion 

to Seal

Standard Document Ruling

60 Good 

Cause Declaration of Daniel C. 

Girard, Ex. 6

GRANTED.

60 Good 

Cause Declaration of Daniel C. 

Girard, Ex. 7

GRANTED.

60 Good 

Cause Declaration of Daniel C. 

Girard, Ex. 8

GRANTED.

60 Good 

Cause Declaration of Daniel C. 

Girard, Ex. 9

GRANTED.

60 Good 

Cause Declaration of Daniel C. 

Girard, Ex. 10

GRANTED.

60 Good 

Cause Declaration of Daniel C. 

Girard, Ex. 11

GRANTED.

60 Good 

Cause Declaration of Daniel C. 

Girard, Ex. 12

GRANTED.

60 Good 

Cause Declaration of Daniel C. 

Girard, Ex.13

GRANTED.

60 Good 

Cause Declaration of Daniel C. 

Girard, Ex. 14

GRANTED.

60 Good 

Cause Declaration of Daniel C. 

Girard, Ex. 15

GRANTED.

60 Good 

Cause Declaration of Daniel C. 

Girard, Ex. 16

DENIED without prejudice. Yahoo may file 

proposed redactions.

60 Good 

Cause Declaration of Daniel C. 

Girard, Ex. 17

GRANTED.

60 Good 

Cause Declaration of Daniel C. 

Girard, Ex. 18

GRANTED.

60 Good 

Cause Declaration of Daniel C. 

Girard, Ex. 19

GRANTED.

60 Good 

Cause Declaration of Daniel C. 

Girard, Ex. 20

DENIED without prejudice. Yahoo may file 

proposed redactions.

Case 5:13-cv-04980-LHK Document 108 Filed 05/27/15 Page 9 of 18
10

Case No.13-CV-04980-LHK 

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Motion 

to Seal

Standard Document Ruling

60 Good 

Cause Declaration of Daniel C. 

Girard, Ex. 21

GRANTED.

60 Good 

Cause Declaration of Daniel C. 

Girard, Ex. 22

GRANTED.

60 Good 

Cause Declaration of Daniel C. 

Girard, Ex. 26

GRANTED.

60 Good 

Cause Declaration of Daniel C. 

Girard, Ex. 27

DENIED without prejudice. Yahoo may file 

proposed redactions.

60 Good 

Cause Declaration of Daniel C. 

Girard, Ex. 28

GRANTED.

60 Good 

Cause Declaration of Daniel C. 

Girard, Ex. 29

GRANTED.

60 Good 

Cause Declaration of Daniel C. 

Girard, Ex. 32

DENIED without prejudice. Yahoo may file 

proposed redactions. The Court will not seal 

YAH00002626–27, and YAH00002637.

60 Good 

Cause Declaration of Daniel C. 

Girard, Ex. 33

DENIED without prejudice. Yahoo may file 

proposed redactions. The Court will not seal

YAH00013045.

60 Good 

Cause Declaration of Daniel C. 

Girard, Ex. 34

DENIED without prejudice. Yahoo may file 

proposed redactions. 

60 Good 

Cause Declaration of Daniel C. 

Girard, Ex. 35

DENIED without prejudice. Yahoo may file 

proposed redactions.

60 Good 

Cause Declaration of Daniel C. 

Girard, Ex. 37

DENIED without prejudice. Yahoo may file 

proposed redactions.

60 Good 

Cause Declaration of Daniel C. 

Girard, Ex. 41

GRANTED.

60 Good 

Cause Declaration of Daniel C. 

Girard, Ex. 42

GRANTED.

77 Good 

Cause

Defendant’s Opposition to 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class 

Certification

GRANTED as to the proposed redaction.

Case 5:13-cv-04980-LHK Document 108 Filed 05/27/15 Page 10 of 18
11

Case No.13-CV-04980-LHK 

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Motion 

to Seal

Standard Document Ruling

77 Good 

Cause

Declaration of Gareth Shue 

in Support of Defendant’s 

Opposition to Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Class 

Certification

GRANTED as to the proposed redactions.

77 Good 

Cause

Declaration of Kevin Day 

in Support of Defendant’s 

Opposition to Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Class 

Certification

DENIED as to line 9, otherwise GRANTED as 

to the proposed redactions.

77, 82 Good 

Cause

Exhibit D to the 

Declaration of Rebekah 

Kaufman in Support of 

Defendant’s Opposition to 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class 

Certification, Abrams 

Interrogatory Responses

GRANTED as to the proposed redactions.

77, 82 Good 

Cause

Exhibit A to the 

Declaration of Rebekah 

Kaufman in Support of 

Defendant’s Opposition to 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class 

Certification, Baker 

Interrogatory Responses

GRANTED as to the proposed redactions.

77, 82 Good 

Cause

Exhibit C to the 

Declaration of Rebekah 

Kaufman in Support of 

Defendant’s Opposition to 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class 

Certification, Nobles 

Interrogatory Responses

GRANTED as to the proposed redactions.

77, 82 Good 

Cause

Exhibit B to the 

Declaration of Rebekah 

Kaufman in Support of 

Defendant’s Opposition to 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class 

Certification, Pincus 

Interrogatory Responses

GRANTED as to the proposed redactions.

Case 5:13-cv-04980-LHK Document 108 Filed 05/27/15 Page 11 of 18
12

Case No.13-CV-04980-LHK 

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Motion 

to Seal

Standard Document Ruling

77, 82 Good 

Cause

Exhibit L to the 

Declaration of Rebekah 

Kaufman in Support of 

Defendant’s Opposition to 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class 

Certification, Abrams 

Deposition

GRANTED as to the proposed redactions.

77, 82 Good 

Cause

Exhibit K to the 

Declaration of Rebekah 

Kaufman in Support of 

Defendant’s Opposition to 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class 

Certification, Baker 

Deposition

GRANTED as to the following proposed 

redactions:

 11:21, 24

 12:8-11, 15

 13:18, 21 (company name only), 23 

(company names only)

 14:7-12 (company names only)

 15:1, 4 (company name only), 6 (same), 

12 (same), 15 (same), 24 (same)

 16:9 (company name only)

 17:22 (company name only)

 19:13

 36:2-6, 9 (company name only), 12 

(same), 14 (same), 16 (same), 17-19 

(same), 21-22 (same), 24

 37:6-7 (company name only), 10 (same)

 38:5, 7-8, 14

 40:5, 9, 11, 24

 41:2

 53:13-14

Otherwise DENIED with prejudice.

77, 82 Good 

Cause

Exhibit J to the Declaration 

of Rebekah Kaufman in 

Support of Defendant’s 

Opposition to Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Class 

Certification, Nobles 

Deposition

GRANTED as to the proposed redactions.

77, 82 Good 

Cause

Exhibit I to the Declaration 

of Rebekah Kaufman in 

Support of Defendant’s 

Opposition to Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Class 

Certification, Pincus 

Deposition

GRANTED as to the proposed redactions.

Case 5:13-cv-04980-LHK Document 108 Filed 05/27/15 Page 12 of 18
13

Case No.13-CV-04980-LHK 

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Motion 

to Seal

Standard Document Ruling

77 Good 

Cause

Exhibit M to the 

Declaration of Rebekah 

Kaufman in Support of

Defendant’s Opposition to 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class 

Certification, Deposition 

Transcript of Amir Doron

The Court has ruled on the parties’ proposed 

redactions of this exhibit as part of Plaintiff’s 

sealing motion, ECF No. 60. 

89 Good 

Cause

Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of 

Points and Authorities In 

Support of Plaintiffs’ 

Reply In Support of Class 

Certification

GRANTED as to the following proposed 

redactions:

 3:25-26

 4:20-21

 5:1

 11:25-26 (first two sentences only)

Otherwise DENIED with prejudice.

89 Good 

Cause

Exhibit 1, Declaration of 

David A Straite, Shue 

Deposition Excerpts

The parties’ proposed redactions are addressed 

below because this deposition transcript was 

submitted in its entirety as an Exhibit to ECF 

No. 96.

89 Good 

Cause

Exhibit 2, Declaration of 

David A Straite, Day 

Deposition Excerpts

The parties’ proposed redactions are addressed 

below because this deposition transcript was 

submitted in its entirety as an Exhibit to ECF 

No. 96.

89 Good 

Cause

Exhibit 3, Declaration of 

David A Straite

GRANTED as to the proposed redactions.

89 Good 

Cause

Exhibit 4, Declaration of 

David A Straite

GRANTED as to the proposed redactions.

89 Good 

Cause

Exhibit 5, Declaration of 

David A Straite

GRANTED as to the proposed redactions.

Case 5:13-cv-04980-LHK Document 108 Filed 05/27/15 Page 13 of 18
14

Case No.13-CV-04980-LHK 

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Motion 

to Seal

Standard Document Ruling

96 Good 

Cause

Shue Deposition Transcript GRANTED as to the following proposed 

redactions:

 3:18-20, 24

 16:8

 17:6

 45:17-18, 22-25

 46:15-19

 47:19-21

 49:11-16, 23-25

 50:1-51:5, 51:12-121

 52:1-10, 12-13, 15-23

 52:25-53:12, 53:14-25

 54:1-17

 56:7-15, 25

 57:1-2, 7-12

 60:8-10, 13-14

 62:6, 10-13, 16-63:6

 63:9-12, 18, 24-25

 64:2-3, 5-11, 13-14, 17-19, 22-65:13, 

65:15-24

 66:3-6, 9-19

 67:1-2, 7-17, 24-25

 68:2-3, 5-6, 9-15, 18, 25 (excluding the 

last word)

 69:5-6, 11, 13-15, 18

 70:7-10, 12 (fifth word only)

 71:4-8, 13-21

 72:17-20, 23-73:1, 73:4, 8-9, 11, 13-15, 

20, 25

 74:4, 7, 10-12, 14-15, 19-23

 75:10, 14-15, 16-18

 76:5 (second to last word only), 17-21, 

25

 77:9

 78:10-11, 18-25

 79:3-12, 15, 18-80:5, 80:7, 11-14

 81:22, 24

 82:5-6, 8-12

 90:12-15

 94:9, 12, 20, 21, 23-95:2, 95:9-15, 17-

18, 20-96:7

 96:8-16, 22,-23, 25-97:4

Case 5:13-cv-04980-LHK Document 108 Filed 05/27/15 Page 14 of 18
15

Case No.13-CV-04980-LHK 

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Motion 

to Seal

Standard Document Ruling

Shue Deposition Transcript 

[CONTINUED]

 97:12, 14-18, 21-22

 98:1-2, 4-8, 22

 99:6, 13-14

 10:2

 101:5-8, 13, 15-102:1, 102:3-23

 103:1 (technology name only)

 103:8 (technology name only), 12 

(same), 15 (same), 20 (same), 24-25 

(same)

 104:2-16, 17-18

 105:6 (fourth word only)

 105:9, 15

 106:11-15, 19-20, 22-24

 107:1-2

 111:15-19

 112:4 (technology name only), 6 (same), 

 114:6-11, 14-19, 22-23

 115:3-4, 11 (technology name only), 14 

(company name only), 17 (same), 21 

(same), 23-25

 116:1-3, 7 (company name only), 10 

(third word only), 14-117:8

 117:13014, 16 (company name only), 17 

(technology name only), 19 (company 

name only), 22 (same)

 119:8, 11-22

 120:5-19, 20-22, 23-121:13

 123:21, 25-124:5

 126:14, 18

 127:5-6

 128:6 

 134:9, 11, 13, 15-16, 20-25

 135:5 (second to last word only)

 143:9 

 146:8

 147:13-17, 20-22, 25

 148:4 (first word only), 8-9, 13-15, 17-

25

 149:2-3, 16, 17, 19,-21, 23

 150:1-2, 3 (last word only), 12 (second 

word only), 23-24

 151:1-12, 16-152:1

Case 5:13-cv-04980-LHK Document 108 Filed 05/27/15 Page 15 of 18
16

Case No.13-CV-04980-LHK 

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Motion 

to Seal

Standard Document Ruling

Shue Deposition Transcript 

[CONTINUED]

 152:3-4, 6-7, 14-16, 

 154:3 (last word only), 6-25

 155:1 (last word only), 6 (technology 

name only), 7 (same), 14, 17-25

 156:1-8

 165:21, 24-166:13

 166:20-25

 167:1-5, 15-16

 168:8-17, 18-19, 20-170:4

 170:6-7, 12-17, 19-21, 23-24

 171:4, 17

 172:2, 10-15

 173:5-14, 16-174:18

 175:12-176:1

 176:3-177:9

 177:13-18

Otherwise DENIED without prejudice.

Case 5:13-cv-04980-LHK Document 108 Filed 05/27/15 Page 16 of 18
17

Case No.13-CV-04980-LHK 

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Motion 

to Seal

Standard Document Ruling

96 Good 

cause

Day Deposition Transcript GRANTED as to the following proposed 

redactions:

 3:16-17, 19, 21, 23, 25

 4:5 (excluding “talked about publicly”)

 31:24-32:2

 34:8-9

 35:19-20, 21-36:2

 37:9-10, 12-17, 23-38:3

 38:6-8, 15-17, 24-39:1

 39:4-7, 12-25

 40:4-7, 10-11, 15-19

 42:7-17, 25-43:4

 43:15-16, 18-44:3

 51:22-52:3

 52:7-13, 17-19, 21-25

 53:1-7. 15-19. 22-23

 55:9-15

 60:10-16, 24

 61:4, 6, 7 (technology name only), 18 

(same), 19, (same), 24 (same)

 62:14 (technology name only), 17

 63:20 (technology name only)

 64:3 (technology name only)

 66:5-7, 11, 13, 16-67:7

 67:9, 14-15, 17-18, 19, 21-25

 68:2-4, 9, 10-16

 76:23

 77:3-6, 16, 22

 78:1-4

 82:6, 8,-13, 16, 23-83:2

 83:4, 6-8, 9, 10-11, 15-25

 84:3-6

 84:10, 12

 85:1, 3-9, 16-86:21

 88:5, 9, 12, 14-19, 22, 24

 89:2, 19 (technology name only), 23 

(same)

 90:19 (technology name only), 15, 18 

(same), 22

 91:12-13, 23 (technology name only)

 93:6 (technology name only), 11 (same)

 96:2 (technology name only)

Case 5:13-cv-04980-LHK Document 108 Filed 05/27/15 Page 17 of 18
18

Case No.13-CV-04980-LHK 

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Motion 

to Seal

Standard Document Ruling

Day Deposition Transcript 

[CONTINUED]

 98:23-24

 99:1,15, 19-21

 100:10, 11-12, 16, 21-101:4

 101:6, 8-11, 16-18

 102:1-2, 24-103:1

 103:3-106:9

Otherwise DENIED without prejudice.

The parties shall file any renewed motions to seal consistent with this Order within seven 

(7) days. The Court cautions the parties that renewed motions to seal that are not narrowly tailored 

and do not make a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the 

information is disclosed will be denied with prejudice. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd, 307 F.3d at

1210–11. 

The Court GRANTS the parties’ stipulation to supplement the record with the full 

deposition transcripts of Gareth Shue and Kevin Day. ECF No. 95. The Court therefore denies as 

moot Defendant’s administration motion for leave to supplement the record. ECF Nos. 97, 98.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27, 2015

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-04980-LHK Document 108 Filed 05/27/15 Page 18 of 18