Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc.

Nature of the order

This was an omnibus order addressing motions to seal—requests to keep court filings or portions of them from public view. The order concerned materials filed in connection with the patent-related proceedings, including claim-construction briefing, both parties’ summary-judgment motions, Sonos’s motion to strike, related submissions, and responses to an order to show cause. The order did not decide the patent claims or the parties’ summary-judgment motions.

Legal standard

The court explained that court records are generally open to the public. Materials more than tangentially related to the merits may be sealed only when there are compelling reasons, while materials unrelated or only tangentially related to the claims may be sealed for good cause. The party seeking secrecy must identify specific harm, explain the private or public interests supporting secrecy, describe the injury that would result from disclosure, and show why less restrictive alternatives would not work. Requests must be narrowly tailored. Protective orders and general statements that competitors could gain an advantage were not enough by themselves.

Sonos’s claim-construction brief

Sonos, with Google’s support, sought to seal an exhibit containing Google’s responses to interrogatories. The court denied the request because the redactions concerned “videoID” and related information that was central to the merits, while Google offered only generic explanations of possible competitive harm. The public interest in understanding the case outweighed Google’s asserted interest in confidentiality.

Materials connected to Sonos’s summary-judgment motion

The court issued document-specific rulings. It denied the request to seal Sonos’s summary-judgment motion because it contained general technical information about Google’s systems and Google’s support was overbroad and nonspecific. It granted in part and denied in part the request concerning an Almeroth declaration, granting protection for specified portions containing source code but denying the request otherwise. It denied the request concerning one exhibit describing Google’s speaker-group system in generic terms, while granting requests covering several exhibits containing detailed confidential information about Google’s systems.

The court granted in part and denied in part the request concerning Google’s opposition brief, allowing sealing for Google’s discussion of a confidential presentation but denying the request otherwise. It granted in part and denied in part the request concerning a declaration, protecting specified source-code images but denying the remainder. It granted requests concerning several exhibits with detailed confidential information about Google’s or Sonos’s systems, but denied requests involving high-level technical descriptions, generic system information, or materials for which the supporting explanation was inadequate. Some requests were denied because Sonos had clarified that it did not seek sealing, or because the request was otherwise unsupported.

Materials connected to Google’s summary-judgment motion

The court denied without prejudice Google’s request to seal an entire fifty-four-page expert report. Google could submit a renewed request with narrowly tailored redactions, although the court warned that a renewed request lacking specific, compelling reasons would likely be rejected. The court granted requests covering detailed confidential information about Google’s systems and granted in part and denied in part requests concerning source-code images and Google’s summary-judgment brief. For the brief, the court allowed sealing of a specified portion concerning the “Cloud Queue API” but denied sealing for a quoted statement from a Sonos engineer and the remainder of the brief.

The court also granted in part and denied in part the corrected motion, denied requests involving generic technical descriptions and portions of an expert declaration, granted requests concerning detailed confidential system information, and denied without prejudice a request concerning a transcript. The transcript request could be renewed with narrowly tailored redactions. The court denied requests where the relevant party did not seek sealing or where the request relied on insufficient, general descriptions of competitive harm.

Materials connected to Sonos’s motion to strike

The court granted in part and denied in part Sonos’s motion to seal, permitting protection for a reference to Google source code and its file location but denying the request otherwise. It granted requests concerning an invalidity claim chart and certain source-code material. It granted in part and denied in part Google’s opposition and Sonos’s reply, allowing protection for identified screenshots, source-code discussions, and file locations while denying the remainder. It denied without prejudice a request concerning a 281-page document because the request did not identify the proposed redactions precisely.

Related submissions and responses to the order to show cause

The court granted requests concerning portions of a deposition transcript, Sonos’s presentation slides, and Google’s presentation slides where disclosure could cause competitive harm. It denied requests concerning a motion to bifurcate and an exhibit because Sonos clarified that it did not seek to seal the information.

For the responses to the order to show cause, the court denied requests involving an expert report submitted on behalf of non-party Bose because Bose did not file the required supporting declaration. It denied requests involving generic technical information about Google’s systems, but granted a request concerning third-party license agreements. It granted a request concerning confidential information about Sonos’s systems, denied a request involving generic technical information about Sonos’s systems, and denied without prejudice Sonos’s request to seal an entire deposition transcript based only on a protective order. The court granted in part and denied in part Sonos’s request concerning an expert report: it denied protection for specified paragraphs containing high-level generic information and granted protection for the remaining proposed redactions. It also granted a request concerning specific technical information about Sonos’s system.

Disposition and deadlines

The court granted, denied, granted in part and denied in part, and denied without prejudice the sealing requests as specified for each document. It stated that the sealing analysis could change at trial or later in the case. Requests denied without prejudice could be renewed within fourteen days with adequate justification. The other documents were to be refiled in compliance with the order by May 30, 2023, at noon.