IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`Alexandria Division
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et^ )
`)
`Plaintiffs, )
`)
`l:23-cv-108(LMB/JFA))V.
`)
`GOOGLE LLC, )
`)
`Defendant. )
`ORDER
`On September 5,2025, defendantGoogle LLC (“defendant”or “Google”)fileda Motion
`toSealCertainConfidentialDocuments and Testimony Proposed forUse atTrial(“Google’s
`Motion to SealTrialDocuments and Testimony”),requestingthatthisCourt sealinformation
`containedwithinexhibitsand testimonyproposed foruse attrialbecauseit“implicatesthe
`privatepersonalinformationof itsemployees,...Google’stradesecretsand proprietary
`informationaswellasotherhighlysensitiveand competitivebusinessinformation.”[Dkt.No.
`1633].On September 12,2025, plaintiffsobjectedtoGoogle’s requesttoseal22 internal
`technicalfeasibilityanalyses,*toredactNoam Wolfs depositiondesignations,and tosealthe
`courtroomforany livetestimonyrelatedtotheseanalyses;Google’s requestto sealor redact48
`exhibits,^whichplaintiffsallegeare“dated”anddo not containsourcecode;and Google’s
`requesttosealPRX108, RDTX575, and RDTX869; and toredactPRX019. [Dkt.No. 1734].On
`1 PRX039-PRX060.
`2PRX005, PRX008, PRXOl 1,PRX013, PRX016, PRX027, PRX028, PRX030, PRX064,
`PRX071, RDTX122, RDTX162, RDTX197, RDTX213, RDTX234, RDTX252, RDTX277,
`RDTX278, RDTX284, RDTX289, RDTX305, RDTX309, RDTX310, RDTX327, RDTX335,
`RDTX347, RDTX351, RDTX356, RDTX370, RDTX376, RDTX377, RDTX410, RDTX434,
`RDTX440, RDTX442, RDTX443, RDTX452, RDTX469, RDTX476, RDTX477, RDTX485,
`RDTX516, RDTX517, RDTX54, RDTX544, RDTX555, RDTX86, DTX172.
`Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 1759 Filed 09/19/25 Page 1 of 6 PageID#
`111470
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`September 17,2025, inresponsetoplaintiffs’objections,Google withdrewitssealingrequests
`regardingtwodocuments^andrevisedthreeofitsredactionrequests.[Dkt.No. 1748].
`The partiesalsofiledmotions to sealportionsof theirfilingsand relatedexhibits.On
`September 5,2025, plaintiffsfileda Motion to SealPortionsof Plaintiffs’Oppositionto
`Google’s Motion to Exclude theTestimony of Dr. Goranka Bjedov and Plaintiffs’Oppositionto
`Google’s Motion In Limine to Exclude Evidence of Google’s AnalysisofRemedy Feasibility,
`and RelatedExhibits(“Plaintiffs’Motion to Seal”)pursuanttotheirobligationsunder the
`Modified ProtectiveOrder [Dkt.No. 203] to provideGoogle and non-partyMeta Platforms,Inc.
`(“Meta”)sufficienttime toprovidetheCourt with supportfortheneedtosealthesedocuments.^
`[Dkt.No. 1667].On September 12,2025, Google fileda Response to Plaintiffs’Motion to Seal,
`requestingthattheCourt keep under sealmaterialsthat“referencehighlysensitivesettlement
`negotiations”and “confidentialinformationbelongingto...thirdparties[.]”^[Dkt.No. 1733].
`Separately,on September 10,2025, Google fileda Motion to SealreDoc. 1708 and
`1709,seekingleaveto filea redactedversionof itsReply Memorandum of Law inSupport of
`Google’s Motion to Exclude theTestimony of Dr. Goranka Bjedov,itsReply inSupportof
`Google LLC’s Motion In Limine to Exclude Evidence Protectedby FederalRule of Evidence
`408, and sealed exhibitsto the Declaration of Daniel Bitton(“BittonDeclaration”)in supportof
`^PRX027 and RDTX575.
`Google providedrevisedredactionsinRDTX869, PRX108, and PRX019.
`^Meta fileda MotiontoSealon September13,2025,respondingto Plaintiffs’Motion to Seal.
`[Dkt.No. 1736].The Court grantedthismotion inpartand denied thismotion inpartina
`separateorder.[Dkt.No. 1757].Meta alsoagreed tothe removal of redactionsthatwere
`previouslyappliedatitsrequestto portionsof Dr. Bjedov’s opening and replyreportsattachedas
`exhibitsto plaintiffs’Opposition to Google’s Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Dr. Goranka
`Bjedov, and does not requestthe continued sealingof thatredactedmaterial.[Dkt.No. 1731].
`^Thosethirdpartiesare:Equativ,IndexExchange,Jay Friedman,Amazon, and Daily Mail.
`2
`Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 1759 Filed 09/19/25 Page 2 of 6 PageID#
`111471
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`itsReply Memorandum of Law in Support of Google’s Motion toExclude theTestimony ofDr.
`Goranka Bjedov because theredactedportionsof thesefilingsreferencehighlysensitive
`settlementnegotiations.[Dkt.No. 1710].
`On September 15,2025, duringtheparties’FinalPre-TrialConference,theCourt granted
`Google’s requestto sealinfull22 internaltechnicalfeasibilityanalyses^anddenieditsrequestto
`sealthecourtroom forany livetestimonyrelatedtotheseanalyses,with thepartiesagreeingto
`frame theirquestionsin such a way as to avoid sealing.Before theCourt areplaintiffs’
`remainingobjectionsto 50 documents thatGoogle continuesto seek toredactor sealinfull,as
`wellas theparties’requeststo redactportionsof certainfilingsand attachedexhibits.
`Having reviewed the remaining 50 documents thatGoogle seeksto sealin fullor inpart.
`but which plaintiffsoppose,theCourt findsthatthe47 proposedtrialexhibits,^whichplaintiffs
`allegeare“outdated”and do not “appearto containany proprietarysourcecode or otherhighly
`confidentialinformation[,J”should be sealed.The sealedportionsof thevastmajorityof these
`documents containdetailedalgorithms,code logic,descriptionsof dataflow,and othertechnical
`detailsthatimplicateGoogle’s proprietarytechnology,and should be protectedfrom public
`disclosure. See Lifenet Health v. Lifecell Corn.. No. 2:13-cv-486, 2015 WL 12517430, at *2
`(E.D.Va. Feb. 12,2015).Though some of thesedocuments may be more than threeyearsold,
`declarationsfiledby Google supporttheassertionthattheycontinueto apply to how Google’s
`currentproductswork ata technicallevel.[SeePeel,of AliAmini, Dkt. No. 1634-1;Deck of
`^PRX039-PRX060.
`^PRX005, PRX008, PRXOl 1,PRX013, PRX016, PRX028, PRX030, PRX064, PRX071,
`RDTX122, RDTX162, RDTX197, RDTX213, RDTX234, RDTX252, RDTX277, RDTX278,
`RDTX284, RDTX289, RDTX305, RDTX309, RDTX310, RDTX327, RDTX335, RDTX347,
`RDTX351, RDTX356, RDTX370, RDTX376, RDTX377, RDTX410, RDTX434, RDTX440,
`RDTX442, RDTX443, RDTX452, RDTX469, RDTX476, RDTX477, RDTX485, RDTX516,
`RDTX517, RDTX54, RDTX544, RDTX555, RDTX86, DTX172.
`3
`Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 1759 Filed 09/19/25 Page 3 of 6 PageID#
`111472
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Glenn Berntson,Dkt.No. 1634-2].Other documents containrecentor forward-lookingstrategy
`discussions,specificcontractualterms,and largedatasetsregardinga Google productand/or
`products,sensitivecategoriesof informationthatthisCourt regularlyseal.See,e.g..BASF Plant
`Sci.. LP V. Commonwealth Sci. & Indus. Rsch. Organisation. No. 2:17-CV-503-HCM, 2020 WL
`973751, at*15 (E.D.Va. Feb. 7,2020),affd inpart,rev'dinpartand remanded, 28 F.4th1247
`(Fed.Cir.2022). Furthermore, the Court issatisfiedthatGoogle has narrowly tailoredits
`redactionswhere possible.
`Of these47 exhibits,plaintiffsraisespecificobjectionsto PRX030 and PRX071. The
`Court finds thatthe limited redactions of PRX030, which providedetailson thesourcecode
`underlyingGoogle’s ad servinginfrastructure,shouldbe sealed.The limitedredactionsof
`PRX071, which revealspecificrevenue sharesby transactiontype and otherfeesina recent
`contractthata publishernegotiatedand paid withinthe lastthreeyears,should be sealedas well.
`Plaintiffsalsoraisespecificobjectionsto PRX108, RDTX869, and PRX019. In response
`toplaintiffs’objections,Google has proposed revisedredactionstothesedocuments. Regarding
`PRX108, theCourt findsthatGoogle’s proposed redactionscontaindetailedand sensitive
`insightsintoGoogle’s future-facingengineeringstrategyand should be sealed.RDTX869 isa
`2024 presentationthatdetailsGoogle’s strategicthinkingconcerningtheuse of Generative
`ArtificialIntelligencein itsbuyside ad tech tools.Because thisimplicatessensitiveinformation
`regardingGoogle’s currentand futurebusinessstrategy,Google’s updated redactionswillbe
`sealed.Lastly,PRX019 isa postmortem writeup on a 2020 bug-relatedincidentthatimpacted
`Google’s ad products.The Court findsthatGoogle’s updated redactions,which includespecific
`detailsregardingGoogle’s responsestomalware, shouldbe sealedas they have no bearingon the
`issuesinthislitigation.
`4
`Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 1759 Filed 09/19/25 Page 4 of 6 PageID#
`111473
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Court has alsoreviewed Google’s Response to Plaintit'fs’Motion to Seal [Dkt.No.
`1733],as wellas Google’s Motion to SealreDoc. 1708 and 1709 [Dkt.No. 1710].Inthese
`pleadings,Google has requestedredactionsin(1)Exhibits1,2,5,6,9,and 10 ofplaintiffs’
`Oppositionto Google’s Motion to Exclude theTestimony of Dr.Goranka Bjedov,and the
`portionsof plaintiffs’Oppositionthatdisclosethecontentsofthesealedportionsofsuch
`exhibits;^(2)Exhibits1-6toPlaintiffs’Oppositionto Google’s Motion In Limine to Exclude
`Evidence of Google’s Analysis of Remedy Feasibility,and theportionsof thatOppositionthat
`disclosethecontentsofthoseexhibits;’®and(3)Google’s filingsinconnectionwith itsReply
`Memorandum of Law in Support of Google LLC’s Motion toExclude theTestimony ofDr.
`Goranka Bjedov and itsReply in Support of Google LLC’s Motion In Limine to Exclude
`EvidenceProtectedby FederalRuleofEvidence408.”As allof thesedocuments concern
`discussionof Google’s internaltechnicalfeasibilityanalyses,which thisCourt has placedunder
`seal,theCourt findsmeritinGoogle’s request.Accordingly,itishereby
`®Googlerequeststhattheredactedtexton thefollowingpages of plaintiffs’Oppositionto
`Google’s Motion to Exclude theTestimony of Dr. Goranka Bjedov remain under seal:page 16,
`footnote4;page 23; page 24: allredactedmaterialin(1)thefirstparagraph,(2)theclausethat
`followsthephase “...andshe considered...”inthefirstsentenceof thesecond paragraph,and (3)
`thesentencebeginning“Those documents were faciallyrelevant...”;page 27: allredacted
`materialin the second paragraph;and page 28: theredactedmaterialinboth (1)thefirstsentence
`of the firstparagraph and (2)the firstthreesentencesof the second paragraph [Dkt.No. 1733].
`Google requeststhatthe redactedtexton the followingpages of plaintiffs’Oppositionto
`Google’s Motion In Limine to Exclude Evidence of Google’s AnalysisofRemedy Feasibility
`remain under seal:page 1;page 4; page 5:allmaterialon page 5 remain under sealexceptthe
`headerof sectionB; page 6:thefirstsetof redactionson page 6 isrequestedto remain under
`seal,and Google isnot seeking to keep the sentence“Google has performed no subsequent...”
`under seal;page 14.
`Google requeststhatcertainportionsof:itsMemorandum in Support of ItsMotion to Exclude
`theTestimony of Dr. Goranka Bjedov; Exhibits1 and 3 to the BittonDeclaration,which contain
`excerptsfrom Dr. Bjedov’s expertreportand herdepositiontestimony;and itsReply in Support
`of Google’s Motion In Limine to Exclude Evidence Protectedby FederalRule of Evidence 408
`be sealed.
`10
`II
`5
`Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 1759 Filed 09/19/25 Page 5 of 6 PageID#
`111474
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDERED thatGoogle’s Motion to Seal TrialDocuments and Testimony [Dkt.No.
`1633] isGRANTED inpartas to thesealingof 22 internaltechnicalfeasibilityanalyses,'^the
`redactingof Noam Wolfs depositiondesignationsasthey pertainto Google’s internaltechnical
`feasibilityanalyses,theexhibitsGoogle proposesto sealor redactthatarenot opposed by
`plaintiffs,and Google’s revisedsealingrequestsas outlinedinAppendix A-1 of itsReply to
`plaintiffs’Omnibus Memorandum Responding toMotions by Google and Third Partiesto Seal
`Documents and Testimony [Dkt.No. 1748],and DENIED as to itsrequestto sealthecourtroom
`forcertainlivetestimonies;and itisfurther
`ORDERED thatPlaintiffs’Motion to Seal [Dkt.No. 1667] isGRANTED inpartas to
`applyingGoogle’s requestedredactionsinitsResponse toPlaintiffs’Motion to Seal [Dkt.No.
`1733];and itisfurther
`ORDERED thatGoogle’s Motion to Sealre Doc. 1708 and 1709 [Dkt.No. 1710] is
`GRANTED.
`The Clerk isdirectedto forward copiesof thisOrder to counsel of record.
`Enteredthisf? dayofSeptember,2025.
`Alexandria,Virginia
`/s/,y hS
`LconicM. Brinkema
`UnitedStatesDistrictJudge
`12
`PRX039-PRX060.
`6
`Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 1759 Filed 09/19/25 Page 6 of 6 PageID#
`111475
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`Alexandria Division
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et^ )
`)
`Plaintiffs, )
`)
`l:23-cv-108(LMB/JFA))V.
`)
`GOOGLE LLC, )
`)
`Defendant. )
`ORDER
`On September 5,2025, defendantGoogle LLC (“defendant”or “Google”)fileda Motion
`toSealCertainConfidentialDocuments and Testimony Proposed forUse atTrial(“Google’s
`Motion to SealTrialDocuments and Testimony”),requestingthatthisCourt sealinformation
`containedwithinexhibitsand testimonyproposed foruse attrialbecauseit“implicatesthe
`privatepersonalinformationof itsemployees,...Google’stradesecretsand proprietary
`informationaswellasotherhighlysensitiveand competitivebusinessinformation.”[Dkt.No.
`1633].On September 12,2025, plaintiffsobjectedtoGoogle’s requesttoseal22 internal
`technicalfeasibilityanalyses,*toredactNoam Wolfs depositiondesignations,and tosealthe
`courtroomforany livetestimonyrelatedtotheseanalyses;Google’s requestto sealor redact48
`exhibits,^whichplaintiffsallegeare“dated”anddo not containsourcecode;and Google’s
`requesttosealPRX108, RDTX575, and RDTX869; and toredactPRX019. [Dkt.No. 1734].On
`1 PRX039-PRX060.
`2PRX005, PRX008, PRXOl 1,PRX013, PRX016, PRX027, PRX028, PRX030, PRX064,
`PRX071, RDTX122, RDTX162, RDTX197, RDTX213, RDTX234, RDTX252, RDTX277,
`RDTX278, RDTX284, RDTX289, RDTX305, RDTX309, RDTX310, RDTX327, RDTX335,
`RDTX347, RDTX351, RDTX356, RDTX370, RDTX376, RDTX377, RDTX410, RDTX434,
`RDTX440, RDTX442, RDTX443, RDTX452, RDTX469, RDTX476, RDTX477, RDTX485,
`RDTX516, RDTX517, RDTX54, RDTX544, RDTX555, RDTX86, DTX172.
`Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 1759 Filed 09/19/25 Page 1 of 6 PageID#
`111470
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`September 17,2025, inresponsetoplaintiffs’objections,Google withdrewitssealingrequests
`regardingtwodocuments^andrevisedthreeofitsredactionrequests.[Dkt.No. 1748].
`The partiesalsofiledmotions to sealportionsof theirfilingsand relatedexhibits.On
`September 5,2025, plaintiffsfileda Motion to SealPortionsof Plaintiffs’Oppositionto
`Google’s Motion to Exclude theTestimony of Dr. Goranka Bjedov and Plaintiffs’Oppositionto
`Google’s Motion In Limine to Exclude Evidence of Google’s AnalysisofRemedy Feasibility,
`and RelatedExhibits(“Plaintiffs’Motion to Seal”)pursuanttotheirobligationsunder the
`Modified ProtectiveOrder [Dkt.No. 203] to provideGoogle and non-partyMeta Platforms,Inc.
`(“Meta”)sufficienttime toprovidetheCourt with supportfortheneedtosealthesedocuments.^
`[Dkt.No. 1667].On September 12,2025, Google fileda Response to Plaintiffs’Motion to Seal,
`requestingthattheCourt keep under sealmaterialsthat“referencehighlysensitivesettlement
`negotiations”and “confidentialinformationbelongingto...thirdparties[.]”^[Dkt.No. 1733].
`Separately,on September 10,2025, Google fileda Motion to SealreDoc. 1708 and
`1709,seekingleaveto filea redactedversionof itsReply Memorandum of Law inSupport of
`Google’s Motion to Exclude theTestimony of Dr. Goranka Bjedov,itsReply inSupportof
`Google LLC’s Motion In Limine to Exclude Evidence Protectedby FederalRule of Evidence
`408, and sealed exhibitsto the Declaration of Daniel Bitton(“BittonDeclaration”)in supportof
`^PRX027 and RDTX575.
`Google providedrevisedredactionsinRDTX869, PRX108, and PRX019.
`^Meta fileda MotiontoSealon September13,2025,respondingto Plaintiffs’Motion to Seal.
`[Dkt.No. 1736].The Court grantedthismotion inpartand denied thismotion inpartina
`separateorder.[Dkt.No. 1757].Meta alsoagreed tothe removal of redactionsthatwere
`previouslyappliedatitsrequestto portionsof Dr. Bjedov’s opening and replyreportsattachedas
`exhibitsto plaintiffs’Opposition to Google’s Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Dr. Goranka
`Bjedov, and does not requestthe continued sealingof thatredactedmaterial.[Dkt.No. 1731].
`^Thosethirdpartiesare:Equativ,IndexExchange,Jay Friedman,Amazon, and Daily Mail.
`2
`Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 1759 Filed 09/19/25 Page 2 of 6 PageID#
`111471
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`itsReply Memorandum of Law in Support of Google’s Motion toExclude theTestimony ofDr.
`Goranka Bjedov because theredactedportionsof thesefilingsreferencehighlysensitive
`settlementnegotiations.[Dkt.No. 1710].
`On September 15,2025, duringtheparties’FinalPre-TrialConference,theCourt granted
`Google’s requestto sealinfull22 internaltechnicalfeasibilityanalyses^anddenieditsrequestto
`sealthecourtroom forany livetestimonyrelatedtotheseanalyses,with thepartiesagreeingto
`frame theirquestionsin such a way as to avoid sealing.Before theCourt areplaintiffs’
`remainingobjectionsto 50 documents thatGoogle continuesto seek toredactor sealinfull,as
`wellas theparties’requeststo redactportionsof certainfilingsand attachedexhibits.
`Having reviewed the remaining 50 documents thatGoogle seeksto sealin fullor inpart.
`but which plaintiffsoppose,theCourt findsthatthe47 proposedtrialexhibits,^whichplaintiffs
`allegeare“outdated”and do not “appearto containany proprietarysourcecode or otherhighly
`confidentialinformation[,J”should be sealed.The sealedportionsof thevastmajorityof these
`documents containdetailedalgorithms,code logic,descriptionsof dataflow,and othertechnical
`detailsthatimplicateGoogle’s proprietarytechnology,and should be protectedfrom public
`disclosure. See Lifenet Health v. Lifecell Corn.. No. 2:13-cv-486, 2015 WL 12517430, at *2
`(E.D.Va. Feb. 12,2015).Though some of thesedocuments may be more than threeyearsold,
`declarationsfiledby Google supporttheassertionthattheycontinueto apply to how Google’s
`currentproductswork ata technicallevel.[SeePeel,of AliAmini, Dkt. No. 1634-1;Deck of
`^PRX039-PRX060.
`^PRX005, PRX008, PRXOl 1,PRX013, PRX016, PRX028, PRX030, PRX064, PRX071,
`RDTX122, RDTX162, RDTX197, RDTX213, RDTX234, RDTX252, RDTX277, RDTX278,
`RDTX284, RDTX289, RDTX305, RDTX309, RDTX310, RDTX327, RDTX335, RDTX347,
`RDTX351, RDTX356, RDTX370, RDTX376, RDTX377, RDTX410, RDTX434, RDTX440,
`RDTX442, RDTX443, RDTX452, RDTX469, RDTX476, RDTX477, RDTX485, RDTX516,
`RDTX517, RDTX54, RDTX544, RDTX555, RDTX86, DTX172.
`3
`Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 1759 Filed 09/19/25 Page 3 of 6 PageID#
`111472
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Glenn Berntson,Dkt.No. 1634-2].Other documents containrecentor forward-lookingstrategy
`discussions,specificcontractualterms,and largedatasetsregardinga Google productand/or
`products,sensitivecategoriesof informationthatthisCourt regularlyseal.See,e.g..BASF Plant
`Sci.. LP V. Commonwealth Sci. & Indus. Rsch. Organisation. No. 2:17-CV-503-HCM, 2020 WL
`973751, at*15 (E.D.Va. Feb. 7,2020),affd inpart,rev'dinpartand remanded, 28 F.4th1247
`(Fed.Cir.2022). Furthermore, the Court issatisfiedthatGoogle has narrowly tailoredits
`redactionswhere possible.
`Of these47 exhibits,plaintiffsraisespecificobjectionsto PRX030 and PRX071. The
`Court finds thatthe limited redactions of PRX030, which providedetailson thesourcecode
`underlyingGoogle’s ad servinginfrastructure,shouldbe sealed.The limitedredactionsof
`PRX071, which revealspecificrevenue sharesby transactiontype and otherfeesina recent
`contractthata publishernegotiatedand paid withinthe lastthreeyears,should be sealedas well.
`Plaintiffsalsoraisespecificobjectionsto PRX108, RDTX869, and PRX019. In response
`toplaintiffs’objections,Google has proposed revisedredactionstothesedocuments. Regarding
`PRX108, theCourt findsthatGoogle’s proposed redactionscontaindetailedand sensitive
`insightsintoGoogle’s future-facingengineeringstrategyand should be sealed.RDTX869 isa
`2024 presentationthatdetailsGoogle’s strategicthinkingconcerningtheuse of Generative
`ArtificialIntelligencein itsbuyside ad tech tools.Because thisimplicatessensitiveinformation
`regardingGoogle’s currentand futurebusinessstrategy,Google’s updated redactionswillbe
`sealed.Lastly,PRX019 isa postmortem writeup on a 2020 bug-relatedincidentthatimpacted
`Google’s ad products.The Court findsthatGoogle’s updated redactions,which includespecific
`detailsregardingGoogle’s responsestomalware, shouldbe sealedas they have no bearingon the
`issuesinthislitigation.
`4
`Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 1759 Filed 09/19/25 Page 4 of 6 PageID#
`111473
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Court has alsoreviewed Google’s Response to Plaintit'fs’Motion to Seal [Dkt.No.
`1733],as wellas Google’s Motion to SealreDoc. 1708 and 1709 [Dkt.No. 1710].Inthese
`pleadings,Google has requestedredactionsin(1)Exhibits1,2,5,6,9,and 10 ofplaintiffs’
`Oppositionto Google’s Motion to Exclude theTestimony of Dr.Goranka Bjedov,and the
`portionsof plaintiffs’Oppositionthatdisclosethecontentsofthesealedportionsofsuch
`exhibits;^(2)Exhibits1-6toPlaintiffs’Oppositionto Google’s Motion In Limine to Exclude
`Evidence of Google’s Analysis of Remedy Feasibility,and theportionsof thatOppositionthat
`disclosethecontentsofthoseexhibits;’®and(3)Google’s filingsinconnectionwith itsReply
`Memorandum of Law in Support of Google LLC’s Motion toExclude theTestimony ofDr.
`Goranka Bjedov and itsReply in Support of Google LLC’s Motion In Limine to Exclude
`EvidenceProtectedby FederalRuleofEvidence408.”As allof thesedocuments concern
`discussionof Google’s internaltechnicalfeasibilityanalyses,which thisCourt has placedunder
`seal,theCourt findsmeritinGoogle’s request.Accordingly,itishereby
`®Googlerequeststhattheredactedtexton thefollowingpages of plaintiffs’Oppositionto
`Google’s Motion to Exclude theTestimony of Dr. Goranka Bjedov remain under seal:page 16,
`footnote4;page 23; page 24: allredactedmaterialin(1)thefirstparagraph,(2)theclausethat
`followsthephase “...andshe considered...”inthefirstsentenceof thesecond paragraph,and (3)
`thesentencebeginning“Those documents were faciallyrelevant...”;page 27: allredacted
`materialin the second paragraph;and page 28: theredactedmaterialinboth (1)thefirstsentence
`of the firstparagraph and (2)the firstthreesentencesof the second paragraph [Dkt.No. 1733].
`Google requeststhatthe redactedtexton the followingpages of plaintiffs’Oppositionto
`Google’s Motion In Limine to Exclude Evidence of Google’s AnalysisofRemedy Feasibility
`remain under seal:page 1;page 4; page 5:allmaterialon page 5 remain under sealexceptthe
`headerof sectionB; page 6:thefirstsetof redactionson page 6 isrequestedto remain under
`seal,and Google isnot seeking to keep the sentence“Google has performed no subsequent...”
`under seal;page 14.
`Google requeststhatcertainportionsof:itsMemorandum in Support of ItsMotion to Exclude
`theTestimony of Dr. Goranka Bjedov; Exhibits1 and 3 to the BittonDeclaration,which contain
`excerptsfrom Dr. Bjedov’s expertreportand herdepositiontestimony;and itsReply in Support
`of Google’s Motion In Limine to Exclude Evidence Protectedby FederalRule of Evidence 408
`be sealed.
`10
`II
`5
`Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 1759 Filed 09/19/25 Page 5 of 6 PageID#
`111474
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDERED thatGoogle’s Motion to Seal TrialDocuments and Testimony [Dkt.No.
`1633] isGRANTED inpartas to thesealingof 22 internaltechnicalfeasibilityanalyses,'^the
`redactingof Noam Wolfs depositiondesignationsasthey pertainto Google’s internaltechnical
`feasibilityanalyses,theexhibitsGoogle proposesto sealor redactthatarenot opposed by
`plaintiffs,and Google’s revisedsealingrequestsas outlinedinAppendix A-1 of itsReply to
`plaintiffs’Omnibus Memorandum Responding toMotions by Google and Third Partiesto Seal
`Documents and Testimony [Dkt.No. 1748],and DENIED as to itsrequestto sealthecourtroom
`forcertainlivetestimonies;and itisfurther
`ORDERED thatPlaintiffs’Motion to Seal [Dkt.No. 1667] isGRANTED inpartas to
`applyingGoogle’s requestedredactionsinitsResponse toPlaintiffs’Motion to Seal [Dkt.No.
`1733];and itisfurther
`ORDERED thatGoogle’s Motion to Sealre Doc. 1708 and 1709 [Dkt.No. 1710] is
`GRANTED.
`The Clerk isdirectedto forward copiesof thisOrder to counsel of record.
`Enteredthisf? dayofSeptember,2025.
`Alexandria,Virginia
`/s/,y hS
`LconicM. Brinkema
`UnitedStatesDistrictJudge
`12
`PRX039-PRX060.
`6
`Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 1759 Filed 09/19/25 Page 6 of 6 PageID#
`111475
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
