1

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL SNYDER EXPERT REPORT

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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART JOINT 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL SNYDER EXPERT 

REPORT

Re: Dkt. 1048

Before the Court is the parties’ joint administrative motion to file under seal portions of the 

expert report of Dr. Edward Snyder (“Snyder Report”). ECF No. 1048. For the following 

reasons, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the parties’ motion to seal. 

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

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

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 motions that are “more than tangentially 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1079 Filed 01/03/19 Page 1 of 12
2

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL SNYDER EXPERT REPORT

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

related to the underlying cause of action,” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 

1099 (9th Cir. 2016), 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 (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). 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 

secrets.” 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.

Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits 

of a case” are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 

1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to court 

records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often unrelated, or 

only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted)). Parties moving to seal records attached to motions unrelated or only tangentially 

related to the merits of a case must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1098–99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d 

at 1179–80. 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) (citation omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning” 

will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation 

omitted).

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, 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1079 Filed 01/03/19 Page 2 of 12
3

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL SNYDER EXPERT REPORT

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

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. (alterations in original). Furthermore, the United States 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, 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 [Local 

Rule] 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.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(d)(1). The 

parties shall file concurrent with the administrative motion to file under seal all necessary 

declarations establishing that the information sought to be sealed is sealable. Id. Pursuant to the 

Court’s order at ECF No. 821, where the parties seek to seal information designated confidential 

by a third party and the parties are unable to file that third party’s declaration in support of sealing 

concurrently with the motion, the third party “will have seven days, rather than the four days 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1079 Filed 01/03/19 Page 3 of 12
4

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL SNYDER EXPERT REPORT

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

prescribed in Civil Local Rule 79-5” to file the third party’s declaration in support of sealing. 

ECF No. 821 at 2.

Here, the information sought to be sealed consists of portions of the Snyder Report, which 

was attached to the FTC’s motion to exclude Dr. Snyder’s opinions. The Court concludes that the 

“compelling reasons” standard applies because the FTC’s motion is “more than tangentially 

related to the underlying cause of action.” Ctr. For Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099. The motion’s 

subject matter—whether to allow the expert opinions of Dr. Edward Snyder, who submitted a 372-

page expert report on whether Qualcomm’s conduct had anticompetitive effects—is central to the 

merits of the FTC’s claims in the instant case. See ECF No. 1014 at 4 (explaining, in previous 

order addressing motions to seal connected with motion to exclude Dr. Snyder, why compelling 

reasons standard applies). The Court previously denied without prejudice the motion to seal the 

Snyder Report because the parties sought to the seal the Snyder Report in its entirety. Id. at 5. 

The parties have complied with the Court’s instruction to refile the motion to seal portions of the 

Snyder Report with a chart with a row for each portion of the Snyder Report sought to be sealed. 

See id. 

The Court now turns to the substance of the sealing motion. Qualcomm and several third 

parties have designated as confidential material in the Snyder Report pursuant to the protective 

orders governing this and related cases involving Qualcomm. See ECF No. 1048 at 2. Qualcomm 

and the third parties have filed declarations in support of sealing. ECF Nos. 828, 830, 832, 834, 

835, 837, 840, 841, 743, 845, 849, 850. For example, Qualcomm attests that portions of the 

Snyder Report reveal Qualcomm’s confidential information relating to “commercial and 

operational strategies, sales and pricing negotiations and strategies, . . . competitive positioning for 

sales of certain products and for certain customers, product development, and finances. ECF No. 

850-2, ¶ 11. Similarly, third party MediaTek declares that the Snyder Report “contains detailed, 

non-public and confidential . . . information of MediaTek regarding its commercial negotiations 

and agreements with customers, its competitive strategy, and its research and development 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1079 Filed 01/03/19 Page 4 of 12
5

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL SNYDER EXPERT REPORT

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

activities.” ECF No. 849, ¶ 4; see also ECF No. 832, ¶ 9 (Samsung declaring that the Snyder 

Report “contains, cites and directly quotes from a myriad of confidential sources containing 

Samsung’s highly confidential documents, data and testimony”). 

Applying the compelling reasons standard, the Court grants in part and denies in part the 

parties’ motion to seal. As explained, in Kamakana, the Ninth Circuit held that compelling 

reasons exist to seal court records when the records may be used to “release trade secrets.” 447 

F.3d at 1179 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). Moreover, “the common law right of inspection has 

bowed before the power of a court to insure that its records are not used . . . as sources of business 

information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. 

App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). Thus, to the extent that the 

instant motion seeks to seal information that, if published, may harm Qualcomm’s or third parties’ 

competitive standing and divulges terms of confidential contracts, contract negotiations, or trade 

secrets, the Court agrees with the parties that compelling reasons exist to seal this information. 

However, not all information that the motion seeks to seal is sealable. The parties have not 

articulated “compelling reasons” to keep such information from the public. For example, the 

motion seeks to seal Apple’s commonsense statement that Apple “looks for the highest quality 

suppliers and competitive pricing” when sourcing modem chips. See ECF No. 1048-5, ¶ 134. In 

addition, the parties also seek to seal the readily available information that Apple selected Intel to 

supply modem chips for Apple’s 2018 iPhone. Id. ¶ 310; see ECF No. 929 (Qualcomm public 

filing referring to Apple’s selection of Intel as a “public fact”). Accordingly, with the Ninth 

Circuit’s sealing case law in mind, the Court rules on the instant motion as follows:

Document Page/Line Ruling

Snyder Report ¶ 32(c) GRANTED. 

Snyder Report ¶ 32(g) GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 35(b) GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 36(c) GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 37(a) GRANTED. 

Snyder Report ¶ 37(b), second sentence DENIED

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1079 Filed 01/03/19 Page 5 of 12
6

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL SNYDER EXPERT REPORT

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

Snyder Report ¶ 37(b), remainder GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 76 & associated footnotes1 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 77 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 86, n.167 GRANTED. 

Snyder Report ¶ 89 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 96 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 97 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 102 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 103 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 103, n.220 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 106 DENIED.

Snyder Report ¶ 108 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 110, n.230 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 112, n.234, beginning with “Q” DENIED.

Snyder Report ¶ 112, remainder GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 133 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 134 DENIED. 

Snyder Report ¶ 135 GRANTED. 

Snyder Report ¶ 137 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 142 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 158, nn.317-319 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 160 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 161 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 165, portion of first sentence up 

until “that”

DENIED.

Snyder Report ¶ 165, remainder GRANTED. 

Snyder Report ¶ 170, “John Moynihan” DENIED.

Snyder Report ¶ 170, remainder GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 171 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 175, n.358 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 181 DENIED. 

Snyder Report ¶ 202 GRANTED. 

Snyder Report ¶ 202, n.384 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 206, n.386 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 207 GRANTED. 

Snyder Report ¶ 207, n.388 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 208, nn.389-90 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 211 DENIED.

Snyder Report ¶ 211, nn.394-95 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 212 GRANTED. 

 

1 Unless the Court specifically addresses the relevant footnote, where the Court grants the motion 

to seal a portion of a paragraph in the Snyder Report and the parties also seek to seal the 

associated footnote(s), the Court also grants the motion to seal the associated footnote. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1079 Filed 01/03/19 Page 6 of 12
7

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL SNYDER EXPERT REPORT

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

Snyder Report ¶ 235 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 237(ii), n.461 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 237(iv), second sentence & 

n.470

GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 239 DENIED.

Snyder Report ¶ 239, n.484 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 243 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 243, nn.498-500 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 244 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 243, n.503 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 246 GRANTED. 

Snyder Report ¶ 246, n.514 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 247 & nn.515, 517 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 248, nn.522-23 GRANTED. 

Snyder Report ¶ 250 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 253, n.534 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 262 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 263, n.557 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 268 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 270, nn.578, 580-81 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 271(iii) GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 272, first sentence DENIED.

Snyder Report ¶ 272, remainder GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 274 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 275 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 286 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 287, nn.637-38, 640 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 288, nn.643-44 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 290, first sentence DENIED.

Snyder Report ¶ 290, remainder GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 291 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 292 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 293 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 296 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 297 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 303-05 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 306, nn.728-29, 731 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 307, nn.733-34 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 308, n.736 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 309 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 310, last sentence DENIED.

Snyder Report ¶ 310, remainder GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 315 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 317, between “for example” and 

“resulting”

DENIED. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1079 Filed 01/03/19 Page 7 of 12
8

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL SNYDER EXPERT REPORT

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

Snyder Report ¶ 317, remainder GRANTED. 

Snyder Report ¶¶ 318-20 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 322, first sentence DENIED.

Snyder Report ¶ 322, remainder GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶¶ 324-25 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 327, first sentence DENIED.

Snyder Report ¶ 327, remainder GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶¶ 328-31 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 332, second sentence from 

“However” to “support”

DENIED.

Snyder Report ¶ 332, remainder GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 333 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 334 DENIED.

Snyder Report ¶ 335 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 336 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 337 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶¶ 339-41 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶¶ 344-46 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 349 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶¶ 352-54 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 356 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶¶ 358 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 359, from “This execution” to 

“leading smartphones”

DENIED.

Snyder Report ¶ 359, remainder GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 361 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 364 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 365 (sentence associated with 

n.975 only)2

GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 366 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 368 DENIED.

Snyder Report ¶ 370 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 373 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 374 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 376, from “HiSilicon’s” to 

“strength in execution”

DENIED.

Snyder Report ¶ 376, remainder GRANTED. 

Snyder Report ¶¶ 379-80 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶¶ 382-85 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 388 GRANTED.

 

2 When filing the redacted version of the Snyder Report, the parties also redacted the sentence 

associated with n.976. ECF No. 1048-4 at 242. However, no party or third party in fact seeks to 

seal that sentence. See ECF No. 1048. The parties shall remove the redaction when refiling the 

redacted Snyder Report in accordance with this order. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1079 Filed 01/03/19 Page 8 of 12
9

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL SNYDER EXPERT REPORT

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

Snyder Report ¶ 395 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 403 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶¶ 406-07 GRANTED. 

Snyder Report ¶¶ 411-12 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 434 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 436, “Via Telecom” in first 

sentence

DENIED.

Snyder Report ¶ 436, remainder GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶¶ 437-40 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 444 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 449 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 451 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 466(a) GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶¶ 468(a)-(b) GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 469 DENIED.

Snyder Report ¶ 471(d) GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 472(e), last sentence DENIED.

Snyder Report ¶¶ 472(a), (c)-(e), remainder GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 473 DENIED. 

Snyder Report ¶ 502 DENIED.

Snyder Report ¶ 509 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 511 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 517 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶¶ 518-20 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 525 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 527(a), (c)-(e) GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 528 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 529 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶¶ 531-32 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶¶ 536-37 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶¶ 541-42 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶¶ 547-50 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 552 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 554 GRANTED.

Snyder Report ¶ 556 DENIED.

Snyder Report ¶ 562 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.177 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.201 GRANTED.

Snyder Report nn.221-23 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.227 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.228 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.238 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.239 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.242 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.244 GRANTED.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1079 Filed 01/03/19 Page 9 of 12
10

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL SNYDER EXPERT REPORT

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

Snyder Report n.245 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.247 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.248 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.252 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.257 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.260 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.263 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.268 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.269 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.272 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.277 DENIED.

Snyder Report n.296 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.312 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.315 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.317 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.322 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.328 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.337 GRANTED.

Snyder Report nn.342-43 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.344, first line DENIED.

Snyder Report n.344, remainder GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.345 DENIED.

Snyder Report n.350-54 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.356 DENIED.

Snyder Report n.480 DENIED.

Snyder Report n.496 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.501 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.509 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.510 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.512 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.513 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.515 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.518 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.527 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.535 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.536 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.542 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.545 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.561 DENIED.

Snyder Report n.576 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.581 GRANTED. 

Snyder Report n.594 GRANTED. 

Snyder Report nn.597-98 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.604 GRANTED. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1079 Filed 01/03/19 Page 10 of 12
11

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL SNYDER EXPERT REPORT

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

Snyder Report n.605 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.609 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.611 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.615 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.630 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.732 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.737 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.751 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.783 GRANTED.

Snyder Report nn.788-89 DENIED.

Snyder Report n.828 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.842 DENIED.

Snyder Report n.857 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.860 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.875 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.886 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.904 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.906 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.920 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.932 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.933, first line DENIED.

Snyder Report n.933, remainder GRANTED. 

Snyder Report n.946 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.960 DENIED.

Snyder Report n.972 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.974 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.978 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.981 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.986 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.1258 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.1301 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.1303 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.1304 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.1305 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.1307 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.1392 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.1430 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.1439 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.1461 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.1477 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.1510 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.1517 GRANTED.

Snyder Report n.1576 GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1079 Filed 01/03/19 Page 11 of 12
12

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL SNYDER EXPERT REPORT

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

Dated: January 3, 2019

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1079 Filed 01/03/19 Page 12 of 12