Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc.

Background

This omnibus order addressed pending motions to seal materials connected with Google’s amended complaint, Sonos’s motions to amend its infringement contentions, Sonos’s answer, and Google’s answer to Sonos’s counterclaims.

The court explained that court records are generally open to the public. Documents more than tangentially related to the merits may be sealed only for “compelling reasons,” while documents unrelated or only tangentially related to the claims may be sealed upon a showing of “good cause.” The party seeking sealing must identify specific harm, explain the private or public interests supporting secrecy, describe the injury that would result from disclosure, and show why a less restrictive alternative would not work. Requests must be narrowly tailored, and supporting declarations cannot rely on vague or boilerplate assertions.

Google’s amended complaint

Google sought to seal a contract between Google and Sonos, references to that contract in proposed pleadings and briefing, and later emails discussing the technology underlying the patents at issue. The court found that Google adequately explained how disclosure of the contract could harm its competitive position and ability to negotiate future agreements. It also found that the emails discussed the technology in enough detail to justify sealing.

The court therefore granted Google’s motions to seal the Content Integration Agreement and the accompanying requested redactions. It also granted the later sealing motions connected with Google’s second amended complaint. The court warned that the decision could change if the sealed material later became relevant at trial or otherwise.

Sonos’s infringement contentions

Sonos, with Google’s support, sought to seal source-code material and infringement contentions. Google later proposed narrower redactions limited to direct references to source code. The court found those proposed redactions sufficiently tailored. The relevant motion was therefore granted in part and denied in part, and Sonos was required to refile Exhibit A using Google’s proposed redactions.

The court applied the same approach to later requests involving the infringement contentions: Sonos could not seal the contentions in their entirety, but could refile them with the narrower redactions. The parties were not permitted to redact variable names needed for the public to understand orders on summary judgment, including “join_group,” “videoId,” “ItemWindowResponse,” “WatchNextResponse,” “upNextVideoID,” and related terms. The court found that variable names were not source code and that Google had not adequately shown serious harm from their disclosure.

Sonos’s motion to seal the infringement contentions connected with its first motion for leave to amend was denied in part because it sought to seal the contentions in full. Sonos’s later requests connected with its corrected motion for leave to amend were also denied in part for the same reason. Google’s requests to seal the contentions in its oppositions to Sonos’s motions were granted, as were Google’s requests concerning highly sensitive financial and product-revenue information.

Sonos’s February 22, 2022 request to seal information on Sonos’s behalf was denied to the extent it covered information beyond Google’s own motion, because Sonos’s supporting filing stated that Sonos had no sealing interest. Sonos’s motion to seal Google’s interrogatory responses was also denied because Google had not filed the declaration required by the district’s local rule.

Sonos’s answer

Sonos, with Google’s support, sought to seal portions of its answer to Google’s amended complaint and 26 exhibits. The materials included infringement contentions, licensing presentations and agreements, source-code references, and emails about a potential partnership.

The court stated that the motion was granted in part and denied in part. The infringement-contention exhibits could be sealed only according to Google’s narrower proposed redactions. Exhibits directly referring to source code, and emails discussing source code and related technology in detail, could remain sealed. But the request concerning Exhibits AZ, BB, BE, BI, and BL was denied without prejudice because the parties had not adequately explained why the high-level emails posed a serious risk of competitive harm. The parties could renew that request with specific, non-boilerplate reasons.

The court allowed the parties’ license agreements and licensing discussions and presentations to remain sealed. It found the proposed redactions in Sonos’s corrected amended answer acceptable to the extent they did not redact more than permitted by the order. The requests concerning that corrected answer were granted in part and denied in part, while the requests accompanying the related motion for leave to correct were granted.

Google’s answer to Sonos’s counterclaims

Google sought to seal portions of its answer to Sonos’s counterclaims and two exhibits. The requested redactions and exhibits involved the same types of material addressed in the earlier rulings. For the same reasons, the court found that references to the Content Integration Agreement, the agreement itself, and detailed emails about the parties’ technology could remain sealed. The motion was granted.

Conclusion

The parties were ordered to file documents fully complying with the order within 35 days of August 29, 2022. The court again stated that its sealing decisions could change if sealed material later became relevant at trial or otherwise.