Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc.

Background

This omnibus order addressed Sonos’s and Google’s remaining omnibus motions to seal court filings and exhibits. The court stated that the parties had substantially narrowed their requests. Sonos’s motion was Docket No. 831, and Google’s motion was Docket No. 851.

The court explained that judicial records are presumptively open to the public. Materials more than tangentially related to the merits may be sealed only for “compelling reasons,” while materials only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a showing of “good cause.” Under the Northern District of California’s local rule, a sealing request must identify the private or public interests supporting secrecy, the injury that would result from disclosure, and why a less restrictive alternative would not be sufficient. The request must also be narrowly tailored, and supporting declarations must explain specifically why the material remains sealable.

Sonos’s Motion

The court granted Sonos’s omnibus motion to seal. The sealed material included proposed term sheets concerning pre-litigation licensing discussions, excerpts referring to confidential details of those term sheets, and related responses and expert-report excerpts. The court found that the proposed term sheet was at most tangentially related to the merits, that the negotiations were understood to be confidential, and that disclosure could cause competitive harm or discourage negotiations that might avoid litigation.

Google’s Motion

The court granted in part and denied in part Google’s omnibus motion to seal. It granted requests involving technical source-code flows and functions, internal YouTube Music materials, confidential financial and usage information, certain employee compensation information, a Google employee’s home address, and other technical or business information that was not made public and could cause competitive harm.

For several filings, however, the court required narrower redactions or disclosure. It denied sealing for information that had already been disclosed, information discussed at trial or in prior court proceedings, generalized descriptions of functionality, and material for which Google had not adequately explained the potential harm. Examples included a source-code function name, certain data-object names and descriptions, generalized explanations of casting and stream-transfer functionality, adjusted damages figures, and some product-category breakdowns.

The court also granted in part and denied in part requests concerning patent-license references, proposed licensing terms, survey results, revenue and installation data, and excerpts from expert reports. In some instances, it required the parties to redact only the names of nonpublic contracting parties or to disclose information already placed in the public record. For the Sonos and Google pre-litigation licensing discussion slide decks, the court granted the request as amended and ordered both decks sealed in their entirety, citing concerns about competitive harm and fairness in the treatment of the parties’ requests.

Disposition

The court granted Sonos’s omnibus motion to seal. It granted in part and denied in part Google’s omnibus motion to seal. The parties were ordered to meet and confer where necessary and to refile all documents in full compliance with the order no later than May 3, 2024, at 12:00 p.m. Judge William Alsup signed the order.