Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-04709/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-04709-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 Patent Infringement

---

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING

LOOKSMART’S ADMIN MOTION TO SEAL

Case No. 3:17-cv-04709-JST

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

Juanita R. Brooks (SBN 75934 / brooks@fr.com)

Jason W. Wolff (SBN 215819 / wolff@fr.com) 

Madelyn S. McCormick (SBN 320063 / mmccormick@fr.com)

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

12390 El Camino Real

San Diego, CA 92130

Tel: (858) 678-5070 | Fax: (858) 678-5099

Betty H. Chen (SBN 290588 / bchen@fr.com) 

Joshua Kain Day (SBN 322372 / day@fr.com)

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

500 Arguello Street, Suite 500

Redwood City, California 94063

Tel: (650) 839-5070 | Fax: (650) 839-5071

Proshanto Mukherji (pro hac vice / mukherji@fr.com)

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

One Marina Park Drive

Boston, MA 02110

Tel: (617) 542-5070 / Fax: (617) 542-8906

Attorneys for Defendant

MICROSOFT CORPORATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

(SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION)

LOOKSMART GROUP, INC.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

 Defendant.

Case No. 3:17-cv-04709-JST

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING

LOOKSMART’S ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 

PORTIONS OF LOOKSMART’S REPLY 

IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR 

SANCTIONS STRIKING MICROSOFT’S 

BELATEDLY DISCLOSED NONINFRINGEMENT DEFENSES AND 

EXHIBITS THERETO

Case 3:17-cv-04709-JST Document 195 Filed 07/16/19 Page 1 of 3
1 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

LOOKSMART’S ADMIN MOTION TO SEAL

Case No. 3:17-cv-04709-JST

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

PROPOSED ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff LookSmart Group, Inc.’s (“LookSmart” or “Plaintiff’) 

Administrative Motion to Seal Portions of LookSmart’s Reply in Support of its Motion for 

Sanctions Striking Microsoft’s Belatedly Disclosed Non-Infringement Defenses and Exhibits 

Thereto. 

Microsoft has articulated “compelling reasons” to seal the documents submitted in 

connection with LookSmart’s reply brief, rebutting the presumption of access to judicial records 

for each of those documents. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 

(9th Cir. 2016). The proposed redactions are narrowly tailored. The Court’s ruling on the sealing 

requests are set forth in the table below:

Document Portion(s) to be Sealed Evidence Offered in 

Support of Sealing

Order

LookSmart’s Reply 

ISO its Motion for

Sanctions Striking 

Microsoft’s 

Belatedly Disclosed 

Non-Infringement 

Defenses

Highlighted portions at:

Page 1, lines 23-25

Page 2, lines 17-18, 26-27

Page 3, lines 1-6, 8-17, 

19-20, 24-27

Page 4, lines4-8, 11, 14-

17, 19, 21, 23-24, 27

Page 5, lines 1-3, 5-7, 12, 

17, 26-27

Page 6, lines 5-6, 10-11

Page 7, lines 4, 27

Page 8, lines 25, 27

Page 9, lines 1, 9-14, 16-

20, 24, 28

Page 10, lines 9, 13-18

Page 11, lines 2, 18-21

McCormick Decl. ¶ 3 Granted

Case 3:17-cv-04709-JST Document 195 Filed 07/16/19 Page 2 of 3
2 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

LOOKSMART’S ADMIN MOTION TO SEAL

Case No. 3:17-cv-04709-JST

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

Page 12, lines 10, 14, 17, 

19, 21-22, 27-28

Page 13, lines 11-12, 16-

19, 22

Page 14, lines 11, 13-14, 

16-22, 24-27

Exhibit 25 Entire document McCormick Decl. ¶ 4 Granted

Exhibit 26 Entire document McCormick Decl. ¶¶ 4 

and 5

Granted

IT IS SO ORDERED

Date: July 16, 2019 __________________________

Hon. Jon S. Tigar

United States District Court Judge

Case 3:17-cv-04709-JST Document 195 Filed 07/16/19 Page 3 of 3