Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00126/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00126-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

GoDaddy.com LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RPost Communications Limited, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-14-00126-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are four motions to seal filed by Plaintiff GoDaddy.com 

LLC (“GoDaddy”) and three motions to seal filed by Defendants.1

 (Docs. 240, 246, 259, 

262, 269, 275, 277). The Court now rules on the motions. 

I. Legal Standard 

It has long been recognized that the public has a general right of access “to inspect 

and copy . . . judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 

U.S. 589, 597 (1978). This right of access extends to all judicial records except those that 

have “traditionally been kept secret for important policy reasons,” namely grand jury 

transcripts and certain warrant materials. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 

F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Nevertheless, “the common-law right of inspection has 

bowed before the power of a court to insure that its records” do not “serve as . . . sources 

of business information that might harm the litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 

 

1

 Defendants are RPost Communications Ltd.; RPost Holdings, Inc.; RPost 

International Ltd.; and RMail Ltd. Defendants are collectively referred to as “RPost.” 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 281 Filed 03/24/16 Page 1 of 15
- 2 - 

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 

U.S. at 598. 

 “Unless a particular court record is one traditionally kept secret, a strong 

presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 

(quotation omitted). A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of 

overcoming this presumption by either meeting the “compelling reasons” standard if the 

record is a dispositive pleading, or the “good cause” standard if the record is a nondispositive pleading. Id. at 1180.2

 

 What constitutes a “compelling reason” is “best left to the sound discretion of the 

trial court.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599. The Court must “balance the competing interests of 

the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Kamakana, 

 

2

 In a recent opinion, a panel of the Ninth Circuit shifted from the dispositive/nondispositive analysis to a review of the relationship between the underlying motion and the 

merits of the case. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp, LLC, No. 15-55084, 2016 

WL 142440, at *6 (9th Cir. Jan. 11, 2016) (“Auto Safety”). Specifically, Auto Safety held 

that public access to records attached to a motion that is “more than tangentially related 

to the merits of a case” will be reviewed under the “compelling interest” standard, while 

documents attached to a motion that does not have a “tangential” relationship to the 

merits of a case may be sealed if “good cause” is shown. Id. However, because Auto 

Safety was only a panel decision and not en banc, prior Ninth Circuit precedent 

centralizing the inquiry on whether the record is dispositive or non-dispositive was not 

overruled. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 899 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Circuit 

Judge Sandra S. Ikuta stated as much in her Dissent: 

According to the majority, the district court here erred because it “relied on 

language in our cases which provides that when a party is attempting to 

keep records attached to a ‘non-dispositive’ motion under seal, it need only 

show ‘good cause.’” Maj. op. at 5. This comes as a surprise, because the 

“language in our cases” constitutes binding precedent. But no matter, the 

majority invents a new rule, namely that a party cannot keep records under 

seal if they are attached to any motion that is “more than tangentially 

related to the merits of a case,” Maj. op. at 17, unless the party can meet the 

“stringent standard” of showing that compelling reasons support secrecy, 

Maj. op. at 8. Because this decision overrules circuit precedent and vitiates 

Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, I strongly dissent. 

Auto Safety, 2016 WL 142440, at *9. Whether Auto Safety will be reheard by the Ninth 

Circuit en banc is unknown as of the date of this Order. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 281 Filed 03/24/16 Page 2 of 15
- 3 - 

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 

447 F.3d at 1179. If the Court decides to seal certain judicial records after considering 

these interests, “it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual 

basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. Generally, 

“compelling reasons sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify 

sealing court records 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 secrets.” Id. (quotation omitted). 

 In the business context, 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.” In re 

Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569–70 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Restatement (First) of 

Torts § 757, cmt. B (1939)). As this Court has observed in the past, “because 

confidentiality alone does not transform business information into a trade secret, a party 

alleging trade secret protection as a basis for sealing court records must show that the 

business information is in fact a trade secret.” PCT Int’l Inc. v. Holland Elecs. LLC, 2014 

WL 4722326, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 23, 2014) (quotation omitted). In other words, 

“[s]imply mentioning a general category of privilege, without any further elaboration or 

any specific linkage with the documents, does not satisfy the burden.” Kamakana, 447 

F.3d at 1184. 

 Similarly, the less-stringent “good cause” standard requires a “particularized 

showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. 

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003) (quotation 

omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Thus, “[b]road allegations of harm, unsubstantiated 

by specific examples of articulated reasoning” is not enough to overcome the strong 

presumption in favor of public access. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 

470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 

II. Analysis 

The parties move to seal documents appended to both dispositive and nonCase 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 281 Filed 03/24/16 Page 3 of 15
- 4 - 

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 

dispositive motions. Because different standards apply to each type of motion, see 

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180, the Court will analyze each motion individually. 

 A. Non-Dispositive Motion 

 The parties ask the Court to seal various documents filed in conjunction with 

RPost’s motion to amend its infringement contentions. (Docs. 240, 246). The Court finds 

that the underlying motion was merely a procedural request by RPost for leave to amend 

its infringement contentions on the eve of the discovery deadline. See (Doc. 226). Thus, 

the motion was a non-dispositive motion that was not “more than tangentially related to 

the merits of a case.” Accordingly, the “good cause” standard for sealing treatment 

applies. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180; Auto Safety, 2016 WL 142440, at *6. 

 The Court concludes that the need for expedited resolution of these motions 

constitutes “good cause” to seal the documents. Also pending before the Court are cross 

motions for summary judgment and a Daubert motion that all must be briefed and 

decided prior to August 22, 2016, the firm trial date set for this case. For this reason, the 

Court will permit these documents to be filed under seal.3

 

 B. Dispositive Motions 

 The parties also moved to seal numerous documents appended to dispositive 

motions. See (Docs. 259, 262, 269, 275, 277). The Court will review each motion in turn. 

 

3

 The Court notes, however, that this ruling has no bearing on whether these same 

documents can be sealed for purposes of summary judgment or at trial. Should a party 

seek to file and seal these documents in conjunction with a summary judgment brief, the 

party must satisfy the “compelling reasons” standard. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. 

Should a party seek to introduce and seal these documents at trial, the party must satisfy 

the Ninth Circuit’s multi-pronged test. See Phx. Newspapers, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court for 

the Dist. of Ariz., 156 F.3d 940, 949 (9th Cir. 1998) (requiring a party to satisfy three 

prongs to seal a document at trial: (1) sealing serves a compelling interest, (2) there is a 

substantial probability that without sealing the compelling interest would be harmed, and 

(3) reasonable alternatives to sealing cannot adequately protect the compelling interest 

(citing Oregonian Publ’g Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of Or., 920 F.2d 1462, 1464 

(9th Cir. 1990))). Thus, the Court’s sealing of these documents is based exclusively on 

finding that “good cause” exists. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 281 Filed 03/24/16 Page 4 of 15
- 5 - 

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 

 1. GoDaddy’s Motion to Preclude (Doc. 266) 

On March 1, 2016, GoDaddy filed a Motion to Preclude Testimony of Defendants’ 

Damages Expert Gregory Smith Redacted (“Motion to Preclude”) pursuant to Daubert v. 

Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). (Doc. 266).4

 Concurrently, 

GoDaddy filed a motion to seal portions of the Motion to Preclude and accompanying 

Exhibits 1, 2, and 4. (Doc. 262).5

 RPost filed a response in opposition to GoDaddy’s 

Motion to Preclude, (Doc. 279), and a motion to seal Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of 

Lewis E. Hudnell III filed in support of RPost’s response (“First Hudnell Declaration”), 

(Doc. 277). Neither party opposes the other party’s motion to seal. 

 The parties seek to seal these documents because they contain “sensitive business 

information” regarding (1) the “financial performance of the accused products,” 

(2) “operating margins and sales information” of GoDaddy, (3) “RPost’s damages expert 

royalty calculation by specific percentage,” (4) “confidential RPost licensing negotiations 

with Authentix,” and (5) “product marketing survey results commissioned by GoDaddy.” 

See (Docs. 262 at 1–2; 277 at 1–2). The parties assert that “[w]ith no allowance for the 

sealing of the [documents], GoDaddy and RPost sensitive proprietary information would 

be revealed, without providing any additional benefit to ensuring the public interest’s 

understanding of the judicial process.” (Docs. 262 at 2; 277 at 2). The parties also note 

that the documents have been designated as “Confidential or Highly Confidential under 

the Protective Order.” (Id.) 

 Although GoDaddy and RPost contend that a showing of “good cause” permits the 

Court to seal these documents, see (id.), the Ninth Circuit holds that Daubert motions 

closely associated with the merits of a summary judgment motion are subject to the 

“compelling reasons” standard. See In re Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Prac. 

 

4

 GoDaddy’s Motion to Preclude remains pending and will be resolved by 

subsequent order. 

5

 Although GoDaddy lodged versions of the three exhibits for the Court’s review, 

it did not lodge a non-redacted version of the motion itself. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 281 Filed 03/24/16 Page 5 of 15
- 6 - 

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 

Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1120 (9th Cir. 2012) (“In re Midland”). In this case, GoDaddy 

moves to preclude the entire testimony of RPost’s damages expert, (Doc. 266), while also 

moving for summary judgment on the issue of damages under the theory that RPost’s 

damages expert is the only evidence of RPost’s damages, (Doc. 257 at 31). Thus, 

GoDaddy would not be entitled to summary judgment on the issue of damages if the 

Court denies its Daubert motion. Accordingly, the Court finds that GoDaddy’s Daubert 

motion is closely associated with the merits of its summary judgment motion, and, in 

order to seal the documents, the parties must show “compelling reasons” that overcome 

the “strong presumption in favor of access.” See In re Midland, 686 F.3d at 1120. 

 a. GoDaddy’s Motion to Preclude 

GoDaddy seeks permission to redact multiple portions of its Motion to Preclude. 

(Doc. 266). Although GoDaddy did not file a non-redacted version of this motion, it is 

apparent from the filed Motion to Preclude that GoDaddy seeks to redact three types of 

information: (1) the royalty rate percentage proposed by RPost’s damages expert, Mr. 

Smith, (2) marketing survey results of a survey commissioned by GoDaddy, and 

(3) generic financial information of GoDaddy. See (Doc. 266). According to GoDaddy, 

the royalty rate percentage is “sensitive proprietary information,” while the survey results 

and financial information are “of a very sensitive nature.” (Doc. 262 at 1). 

 The Court finds that GoDaddy’s generalized statement that this information is 

“sensitive” does not demonstrate that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the 

material is publicly filed. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130. Similarly, GoDaddy does not 

substantiate its “broad allegation of harm” with “specific examples or articulated 

reasoning.” See Beckman, 966 F.2d at 476. Unlike other situations where courts have 

permitted a party to file a royalty rate under seal, see In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 

at 569 (sealing a document that reflected a royalty rate that was part of a licensing 

agreement between a party and a third entity), the royalty rate in this case is simply Mr. 

Smith’s proposed royalty rate and does not reflect an actual term of an enforceable 

agreement between the parties. In fact, Mr. Smith’s proposed royalty rate is the element 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 281 Filed 03/24/16 Page 6 of 15
- 7 - 

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 

of his report that GoDaddy predominantly challenges as unreliable under Daubert, see 

(Doc. 266), thereby ensuring public interest in the information, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d 

at 1178–79 (noting that the main public policy favoring disclosure is the “public interest 

in understanding the judicial process”). Moreover, Mr. Smith’s royalty rate cannot be 

considered GoDaddy’s trade secret because it is RPost’s proposed rate to calculate 

damages. Finally, should Mr. Smith’s expert report withstand GoDaddy’s Motion to 

Preclude, GoDaddy is undoubtedly aware that the royalty rate will be brought to the 

jury’s attention at trial—in unsealed format. For these reasons, the proposed royalty rate 

does not overcome the strong presumption of public access, and the Court will not permit 

GoDaddy to redact this information. 

 Likewise, the Court is not persuaded that the “very sensitive nature” of 

GoDaddy’s marketing survey or generic financial information constitutes a compelling 

reason that justifies redaction. Aside from its blanket statement that the survey and 

financial data constitutes “very sensitive” information which, if revealed publicly, could 

potentially cause harm, GoDaddy has not demonstrated what “specific prejudice or harm 

will result” if the information is not redacted. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130. Because the 

Court is precluded from hypothesizing or assuming that a compelling reason exists, see 

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179, GoDaddy will not be permitted to redact this information.6

 b. Exhibit 1 to GoDaddy’s Motion to Preclude 

 GoDaddy seeks to seal Exhibit 1 to its Motion to Preclude. (Doc. 262 at 1). After 

review of the exhibit, which is an expert report of David R. Perry explaining why he 

believes that Mr. Smith’s damages report is flawed, the Court is not persuaded that the 

information warrants sealing under the compelling reasons standard. Namely, GoDaddy 

does not provide a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” 

if the excerpts from Mr. Perry’s report are publicly disclosed, see Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130, 

 

6

 GoDaddy did not lodge a non-redacted version of its Motion to Preclude. Thus, 

the Court will require GoDaddy to file a Notice of Compliance appended with a nonredacted version of the motion. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 281 Filed 03/24/16 Page 7 of 15
- 8 - 

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 

nor does the report constitute a trade secret, see In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x at 

569–70. Thus, the Court will not permit this exhibit to be filed under seal. 

 c. Exhibit 2 to GoDaddy’s Motion to Exclude 

 GoDaddy also seeks to seal sixty-nine full pages of RPost’s supplemental expert 

report and accompanying appendices. Reflected in the sixty-nine pages is a hodgepodge 

of information that clearly does not warrant sealing under the compelling reasons 

standard. For example, GoDaddy asks the Court to seal multiple pages of Mr. Smith’s 

academic and professional background, in addition to material that GoDaddy publicly 

disclosed in its Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Forms S-1 and 10-Q. As 

to the revenue data for certain products, GoDaddy did not make a “particularized 

showing” that “specific prejudice or harm would result” if such information was publicly 

disclosed. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130. Nor is the Court persuaded that such revenue 

information is a sealable trade secret. GoDaddy’s explanations for sealing are generalized 

in nature, do not show that any measures outside of this litigation have been taken to 

secure confidentiality, and lack substantiation with specific examples or articulated 

reasoning. See (Doc. 262 at 1–2). More specificity is required. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 

1130; Beckman, 966 F.2d at 476. Finally, for the reasons set forth above, Mr. Smith’s 

proposed royalty rate does not warrant sealing treatment. 

 The Court will, however, allow the parties to file under seal the documents 

detailing the express terms and conditions of RPost’s prior settlement agreements that are 

currently lodged at Docket No. 263-1 at ¶¶ 56–62, 87, and Supplemental Exhibit 6. The 

Court is satisfied that (1) release of this information would result in an invasion of the 

privacy interests of third parties, (2) RPost would suffer competitive harm if this material 

were made public, and (3) compelling reasons exist to file this information under seal. 

See In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x at 569 (finding compelling reasons to seal the 

pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment terms found in a licensing 

agreement). More specifically, the Court is satisfied that disclosing the terms of these 

agreements would put RPost at a stark disadvantage in future negotiations for similar 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 281 Filed 03/24/16 Page 8 of 15
- 9 - 

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 

agreements.7

 d. Exhibit 4 to GoDaddy’s Motion to Exclude 

This exhibit contains excerpts of Mr. Smith’s deposition regarding the following 

topics: (1) Mr. Smith’s apportionment of damages, (2) the proposed running royalty rate 

by the prior owner of the Feldbau Patent, and (3) the GoDaddy-commissioned market 

survey. Again, GoDaddy has not elaborated or explained why this information should be 

sealed, and the Court is not persuaded that compelling reasons exist to do so. See 

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1184 (“Simply mentioning a general category of privilege, 

without any further elaboration or any specific linkage with the documents, does not 

satisfy the burden.”). Whether Mr. Smith properly apportioned damages is an issue that 

GoDaddy strongly disputes, see (Doc. 266), and thus, the public has a high interest in this 

information to understand the judicial process. In the absence of compelling reasons as to 

why this information merits sealing, the Court will not authorize Exhibit 4 to be sealed. 

e. First Hudnell Declaration 

RPost seeks to seal an exhibit to the First Hudnell Declaration, which contains 

excerpts of Mr. Perry’s expert report analyzing Mr. Smith’s proposed royalty rate. For the 

reasons stated above, the Court will not permit this exhibit to be filed under seal. 

2. RPost’s Motion for Summary Judgment 

 GoDaddy argues that the redacted portions of Exhibits 16, 17, and 23 to Mr. 

Hudnell’s Declaration in support of RPost’s motion for summary judgment (“Second 

Hudnell Declaration”) should be sealed because the exhibits contain “information 

regarding non-public, confidential internal GoDaddy business practices, the parties’ 

commercial relationship with a third party, revenue and sales performance information 

about the accused email marketing products, and certain of the parties’ pre-suit 

communications regarding the amount of settlement offers that are in effect GoDaddy’s 

 

7

 Because this document was not lodged in redacted format, the Court will require 

GoDaddy to file this document redacted in accordance with this Order. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 281 Filed 03/24/16 Page 9 of 15
Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 281 Filed 03/24/16 Page 10 of 15
- 11 - 

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 

to Second 

Hudnell 

Declaration 

(Doc. 264) 

(Doc. 274 at 2), and GoDaddy subsequently moved to 

seal the other three exhibits, see (Doc. 275). The Court 

will therefore determine whether to seal Exhibits 16, 17, 

and 23 based on GoDaddy’s motion. 

275 Exhibit 16 to 

Second Hudnell 

Declaration 

(Doc. 264-1) 

DENIED. The redacted portions of this document 

include a proposed settlement offer from RPost and 

generic information about GoDaddy’s commercial 

relationship with a third party. The Court finds that 

neither piece of information constitutes a sealable “trade 

secret,” see, e.g., Allagas v. BP Solar Int’l, Inc., 2016 

WL 324040, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2016) (“There is 

no apparent privilege or trade secret matter at stake if . . 

. documents [describing settlement offers] are 

disclosed.”); Fujitsu Ltd. v. Belkin Int’l, Inc., 2012 WL 

6019754, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2012) (denying a 

motion to seal a document consisting of settlement 

negotiations because the party “fail[ed] to articulate how 

the disclosure of [the] document could ‘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 secrets” 

(citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179)), and is not 

persuaded that GoDaddy’s lone allegation of specified 

harm—competitor exploitation—is applicable to this 

material. 

275 Exhibit 17 to 

Second Hudnell 

Declaration 

(Doc. 264-2; 

264-3) 

DENIED. The fact that this testimony (1) references 

innocuous communications between RPost and 

GoDaddy, (2) provides an estimated number of patent 

notice letters GoDaddy received, (3) discloses RPost’s 

initial settlement offer, and (4) alludes to pre-suit 

discussions between GoDaddy and a third party does 

not warrant sealing the information from public 

purview. Again, the Court is not persuaded that this 

business information is a trade secret or that GoDaddy’s 

competitors could exploit this material as leverage in 

future business dealings with GoDaddy. 

275 Exhibit 23 to 

Second Hudnell 

Declaration 

(Doc. 264-5) 

DENIED. This document also references RPost’s initial 

settlement offer and GoDaddy’s contention that a third 

party is involved in the alleged infringement. Such 

material does not constitute sealable trade secrets, and 

the Court is not persuaded that GoDaddy’s lone 

contention of prejudice applies to the remainder of the 

redacted material. Namely, it is seemingly unlikely that 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 281 Filed 03/24/16 Page 11 of 15
Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 281 Filed 03/24/16 Page 12 of 15
- 13 - 

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 

10 DENIED. The Court is completely unaware why this excerpt of Dr. Terrance 

Tomkow’s deposition warrants sealing. The information describes (1) prior 

cases widely available to the public and (2) the educational background of Dr. 

Tomkow. 

19 DENIED. RPost claims that this document is “highly confidential” because it 

discusses non-public positions and business information of RPost. Again, 

however, the Court is presented with no indication as to why this information 

is so confidential such that sealing is necessary. On its face, this document 

provides generic business information about RPost, such as Mr. Tomkow’s 

estimation of how many employees worked at RPost on a particular date. 

Absent a showing of particularized prejudice or harm, the Court will not allow 

the parties to seal this document. 

27 DENIED. Exhibit 27 is a twenty-seven page excerpt from RPost’s 

infringement contentions. GoDaddy claims the document refers to 

“GoDaddy’s technical information relating to the accused products that is 

commercially sensitive and non-public.” The document is structured with the 

following three sections: (1) claim language, (2) a generalized description of 

the accused infringing products (many of which are screen captures from 

GoDaddy’s website with website addresses), and (3) a “discussion” of the 

alleged infringement. The claim language is certainly not sealable information, 

nor are screen captures that display publicly available website addresses. As to 

the remaining information, absent a detailed explanation of why the material 

harms or prejudices GoDaddy, the Court will not hypothesize or manufacture 

such an explanation. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 

28 DENIED. For the same reasons as Exhibit 27, GoDaddy’s request to seal 

Exhibit 28 is denied. The Court is not persuaded that the strong presumption of 

public access has been overcome by GoDaddy’s broad allegation of 

generalized harm. 

30 DENIED. Exhibit 30 is a sixteen page excerpt of Mr. Haslup’s deposition. As 

before, the Court is not persuaded that GoDaddy’s broad allegation of harm 

has overcome the strong presumption of public access to judicial records. 

GoDaddy states that Exhibit 30 contains “secret information” but does not 

explain why this information is secret or whether additional measures have 

been implemented to maintain the information’s “secrecy.” 

35 DENIED. This document includes excerpts from Mr. Smith’s supplemental 

expert report. GoDaddy publicly disclosed much of this information in its 

Form S-1, while the other information concerns Mr. Smith’s proposed royalty 

rate, which as discussed above, is not entitled to sealing treatment. 

36 DENIED. Exhibit 36 contains excerpts from the deposition of Marc Heiligers, 

who apparently has knowledge about GoDaddy’s Mad Mimi product. Once 

again, the Court is not persuaded by GoDaddy’s broad allegation of harm that 

the company would suffer a loss of competitive standing if this non-trade 

secret information was filed publicly. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 281 Filed 03/24/16 Page 13 of 15
- 14 - 

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 

37 DENIED. This document contains excerpts from the deposition of Eric 

Weiherer. The parties do not clarify the identity of Mr. Weiherer or what 

position he holds in this litigation. In any event, the Court is not persuaded that 

the strong presumption of public access to judicial records has been overcome 

simply because GoDaddy believes this information is “secret.” Without a 

detailed explanation setting forth a reason why this deposition testimony 

prejudices or harms GoDaddy, the Court can only speculate as to why this 

information requires sealing. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 

III. Conclusion 

 For the reasons set forth above, 

IT IS ORDERED that GoDaddy’s Motion to Seal Exhibits 1-3, 5, and 8 to 

Response Brief (Doc. 240) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall file under seal the 

documents lodged at Docket No. 241. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that RPost’s Motion to File under Seal (Doc. 246) 

is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall file under seal the documents lodged at Docket 

No. 247. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that RPost’s Motion to Seal Document (Doc. 259) 

is DENIED as moot. The Clerk of Court shall unseal and file RPost’s proposed motion 

for summary judgment and separate statement of facts that are lodged at Docket Nos. 260 

and 261. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that GoDaddy’s Unopposed Motion to Seal 

Redacted Portions of Exhibits 16-17 and 23 to Declaration of Lewis E. Hudnell, III in 

Support of RPost’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Count I (Fraudulent 

Misrepresentation of Patent Ownership) (Doc. 275) is DENIED. On April 1, 2016, the 

Clerk of Court shall unseal and file the documents that are lodged at Docket No. 264. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that GoDaddy’s Motion to Seal Exhibits to 

GoDaddy’s Statement of Fact[s] in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 269) 

is DENIED. On April 1, 2016, the Clerk of Court shall unseal and file the documents that 

are lodged at Docket No. 270. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that GoDaddy’s Motion to Seal Exhibits to 

Motion to Preclude Testimony of Damages Expert Gregory Smith and Request to File 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 281 Filed 03/24/16 Page 14 of 15
- 15 - 

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 

Under Seal Redacted Portions of its Motion (Doc. 262) is DENIED. By April 1, 2016, 

GoDaddy shall file a Notice of Compliance appended with versions of its Motion to 

Preclude and accompanying exhibits that are in accordance with this Order. Once 

GoDaddy files its Notice of Compliance, the Clerk of Court shall file under seal the 

documents lodged at Docket No. 263. 

 IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that RPost’s Motion to File Under Seal (Doc. 277) 

is DENIED. On April 1, 2016, the Clerk of Court shall unseal and file the documents that 

are lodged at Docket No. 278. 

 Dated this 24th day of March, 2016. 

Case 2:14-cv-00126-JAT Document 281 Filed 03/24/16 Page 15 of 15