Workplace Technologies Research, Inc. v. Project Management Institute, Inc.

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WORKPLACE TECHNOLOGIES Case No.: 18cv1927 JO (MSB) RESEARCH, INC., ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL Plaintiff, v. PROJECT MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE, INC., Defendant.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE, INC., 18 Counter-Claimant, v. WORKPLACE TECHNOLOGIES RESEARCH, INC., Counter-Defendant.

24 Plaintiff Workplace Technologies Research, Inc. (“WTRI”) and Defendant Project Management Institute, Inc. (“PMI”)’s filed a Joint Motion to Seal in connection with the Parties’ Motions in Limine and Daubert Motions. (Doc. No. 328). For the reasons set forth below, the Parties’ Joint Motion is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN- PART.

1 LEGAL STANDARD 2 “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.”

6 Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). “The presumption of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’”

10 Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo (Amodeo II), 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)).

12 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong presumption of access. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The showing required to meet this burden depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that “is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101.

17 When the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the “compelling reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1097–99. When the underlying motion does not surpass the tangential relevance threshold, the “good cause” standard applies.

20 Id. Nondispositive evidentiary motions—including “routine motions in limine” and Daubert motions may be “strongly correlative to the merits of a case.” Id. at 1099.

22 The decision to seal documents is “one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court” upon consideration of “the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.”

24 Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599 25 ANALYSIS 26 Here, the Parties seek to seal three general categories of documents: (1) documents previously ordered sealed by the Court; (2) documents that contain, reference, or discuss non-public business information, including PMI’s alleged trade secrets; and (3) “third- party” documents that were marked “CONFIDENTIAL” under the Protective Order.

2 (Doc. No. 328 at 5–9; 19–20).

3 The Court addresses each category of documents in turn. First, the Court notes that in its prior August 10, 2021 Order, the Court already granted the Parties’ request to seal certain documents which: (1) contained, referenced, or discussed non-public business information; and/or (2) contained confidential communications between WTRI and the National Science Foundation (“NSF”). (See Doc. No. 167 at 2–4). The Parties do not point to anything that would call the Court’s prior Order into question. The Court, therefore, renews the findings in that Order here.

10 Second, the Parties request that the Court seal a new set of documents containing non-public information—including customer names, pricing information, and descriptions of PMI’s alleged trade secrets. As the Court noted in its prior Order, “[d]ocuments containing commercially sensitive information have been held sealable in this Circuit.” Orthopaedic Hosp. v. Encore Med., L.P., No. 19-CV-970 JLS (AHG), 2021 WL 1966121, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2021) (collecting cases); see also Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011) (“The publication of materials that could result in infringement upon trade secrets has long been considered a factor that would overcome [the] strong presumption” in favor of public access to court records); In re Incretin-Based Therapies Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 13MD2452 AJB (MDD), 2021 WL 20 873290, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2021) (“Courts have long acknowledged that the risk of competitive harm through disclosure of confidential and proprietary information warrants maintaining documents under seal, even in light of the general presumption of public access to judicial documents.”).

24 Here, the Court finds the Parties have sufficiently justified sealing limited portions of the Parties’ exhibits that contain such confidential, non-public information.

26 Nevertheless, a number of the Parties’ requests are not narrowly tailored “to remove from public view only the material that is protected.” Wasito v. City of San Diego, No. 19-CV- 2395 JLS (JLB), at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2019) (quoting Ervine v. Warden, 214 F. 6 Supp. 3d 917, 919 (E.D. Cal. 2016)). The Court addresses these requests in more detail below.

3 Third, WTRI seeks to seal certain “third party” documents out of an “abundance of caution.” (Doc. No. 328 at 14). It appears the “third party” documents WTRI is referencing are excerpts from the deposition transcript of Dr. Alicia Sanchez and Misael Labrador. Id. at 8–9. As an initial matter, it is unclear to the Court how these transcripts are “third-party documents” when they are transcripts of depositions taken in this case.

8 Regardless, the Court has addressed WTRI’s request—and PMI’s response—below.

9 Finally, the Court notes numerous documents were lodged for sealing that: (1) the Parties did not address; (2) the Parties do not now oppose to publicly filing; and/or (3) were already publicly filed on the docket.1 Given the lack of opposition, the Court will order these documents to be publicly filed, to the extent they have not been already.

13 The Court has considered and ruled on each of the exhibits the Parties designated for sealing as set forth in the following table: 15 Document Portions Order Expert Rebuttal Report of Section F.a GRANTED. Previously Clark Aldrich (Patiño Decl., sealed pursuant to the Court’s Ex. 1) (Doc. No. 252-2) August 10, 2021 Order.

Expert Report of Mickey A. Page 61, footnote GRANTED. Previously Ferri, Ph.D. (Patiño Decl., Ex. 339; Page 85, ⁋ sealed pursuant to the Court’s 2) (Doc. No. 252-3) 105(e) August 10, 2021 Order.

Expert Report of Carlyn Irwin Page 20, footnote GRANTED. Previously (Patiño Decl., Ex. 4) (Doc. No. 80; Page 27, ⁋ 63, sealed pursuant to the Court’s 252-4) first sentence that August 10, 2021 Order. cites to footnote 111.

Expert Report of Dr. Ricardo ⁋⁋ 78, 81 GRANTED. Previously 1 The Parties’ conduct resulted in the Court reviewing and addressing documents that should not have been lodged for sealing. The Parties are admonished such conduct 1 Document Portions Order Valerdi (Patiño Decl., Ex. 6) sealed pursuant to the Court’s (Doc. No. 252-5) August 10, 2021 Order.

Excerpts from the Deposition 195:19–204:22; GRANTED. Previously Transcript of Jeremiah Stepan 295:18–300:25; sealed pursuant to the Court’s (Patiño Decl., Ex. 12) (Doc. 305:1–312:25; August 10, 2021 Order.

No. 252-6) 325:1–326:1 Excerpts from the Deposition 99:10–109:12; GRANTED. Previously Transcript of Ricardo Valerdi 185:7–188:25; sealed pursuant to the Court’s (Patiño Decl., Ex. 13) (Doc. 241:13–248:25 August 10, 2021 Order.

No. 252-7) Excerpts from the Deposition 74:11–79:20; GRANTED. Previously Transcript of Chris Mancus 97:3–104:2; sealed pursuant to the Court’s (Patiño Decl., Ex. 16) (Doc. 153:1–155:25 August 10, 2021 Order.

No. 252-8) Document produced by PMI in Entirety In view of PMI’s Non- this litigation bearing Bates Opposition, this document is numbers PMI00017273– ORDERED to be filed PMI00017304 (Patiño Decl., publicly.

15 Ex. 18) (Doc. No. 252-9) Excerpts from the Deposition 191:8–200:21 GRANTED-IN-PART and Transcript of Alicia Sanchez DENIED-IN-PART. (Patiño Decl., Ex. 19) (Doc.

18 No. 252-10) PMI seeks to seal 191:8– 19 200:21, because this portion of the transcript purportedly “explain[s] how PMI’s trade 21 secret technology works.” (Doc. No. 328-1 at 2).

23 PMI’s request is GRANTED 24 as to 191:8–194:21; 196:14– 15; 198:6–198:17; 199:16– 25 200:21.

It is DENIED as to the remainder of this request, 28 which is not an explanation of 1 Document Portions Order 2 how PMI’s trade secrets work but reflects testimony as to whether the witness would 4 characterize PMI’s “Flows” as confidential information, when these Flows were developed, 6 how they were stored, and who had access to them. PMI has provided no reason why these 8 portions of the deposition transcript should be sealed.

Document produced by PMI in In view of PMI’s Non- this litigation bearing Bates Opposition, this document is numbers PMI00017336– ORDERED to be filed PMI00017345 (Patiño Decl., publicly.

Ex. 22) (Doc. No. 252-11) Excerpts from the Deposition 37:1–38:3 GRANTED Transcript of Misael Labrador (Patiño Decl., Ex. 23) (Doc.

15 No. 252-12) WTRI’s Motion to Page 14, footnote GRANTED-IN-PART and Exclude/Strike (Doc. No. 252- 4; page 19, lines DENIED-IN-PART.

1) 27–28; page 23, 18 lines 8–9; page 24, The Parties’ request is lines 15–16; page 19 GRANTED with respect to 25, lines 11–12 page 19, lines 27–28, page 23, lines 8–9, page 24, lines 15–16, 21 and page 25, lines 11–12.

It is DENIED with respect to Page 14, footnote 4. Although 24 these sentences cite to materials previously sealed by the Court, the discussion in the 26 footnote itself is directed as to which entity was responsible for a Web Portal.

1 Document Portions Order 2 The Court’s prior concern with the confidentiality of these materials had to do with the 4 content of the source code— rather than whether PMI, WTRI, or a third-party was 6 responsible for creating the Web Portal.

WTRI’s Motions in Limine Page 13, footnote GRANTED-IN-PART and (Doc. No. 252) 8; page 20, lines DENIED-IN-PART.

9 20–26; page 22, lines 19–20; page 10 GRANTED as to Page 13, 22, lines 26–27; footnote 8 and Page 22, lines 11 page 23, lines 1–2; 26–27. page 23, lines 5–6 DENIED with respect to the remainder of the sealing 14 request. Neither Party has provided any reason why the remaining identified excerpts 16 should be sealed.

17 Document bearing Bates In view of the Parties’ Non- numbers WTRI00000051– Opposition, this document is WTRI00000071 (McMeans ORDERED to be filed Decl., Ex. A) (Doc. No. 254-3 publicly. at 2–23).

Document bearing Bates In view of the Parties’ Non- number WTRI00013019 Opposition, this document is (McMeans Decl., Ex. B) (Doc. ORDERED to be filed No. 254-3 at 24–25). publicly.

Document bearing Bates In view of the Parties’ Non- number WTRI00029242 Opposition, this document is (McMeans Decl., Ex. C) (Doc. ORDERED to be filed No. 254-3 at 26–27). publicly.

Document bearing Bates In view of the Parties’ Non- numbers WTRI00058255– Opposition, this document is WTRI00058275 (McMeans ORDERED to be filed !

2 || | Decl., Ex. D) (Doc. No. 254-3 publicly.

3 at 28-49).

Document bearing Bates In view of the Parties’ Non- + || | numbers WTRIO0095039— Opposition, this document is || | WTRIO0095076 (McMeans ORDERED to be filed Decl., Ex. E) (Doc. No. 254-3 publicly.

6 || | at 50-88).

7 || | PMI’s Notice of In view of the Parties’ Non- g || | Motion/Motion in Limine No. Opposition, these documents (Doc. Nos. 254, 254-1) are ORDERED to be filed 9 publicly.

10 || | Declaration of Hannah Despite the fact this document 11 McMeans in Support of PMI’s was lodged for sealing, no Motion in Limine No. 8 (Doc. Party has provided any reason || | No. 254-2) for why it should be sealed.

13 For these reasons, this document is ORDERED to be 14 filed publicly.

15 Excerpts from the 9/28/2020 85:25; 86:2; 251:3 | GRANTED 16 deposition transcript of Dr. DiBello (Horak Decl., Ex. A) 17 (Doc. No. 257-1) || | Excerpts from LaMotta expert In view of the Parties’ Non- 19 report (Horak Decl., Ex. B) Opposition, this document is (Doc. No. 257-2) ORDERED to be filed 20 publicly.

21 Excerpts from the 4/27/2021 In view of the Parties’ Non- deposition transcript of Mr. Opposition, this document is |! | LaMotta (Horak Decl., Ex. C) ORDERED to be filed || | (Doc. No. 257-3) publicly.

24 || | PMI’s Motion in Limine In view of the Parties’ Non- No. 1 (Doc. No. 257) Opposition, this document is 25 ORDERED to be filed 26 publicly.

deposition transcript of Dr. 122:6; 128:3; 28 DiBello (Horak Decl., Ex. B 131:10; 226:10; !

3 Excerpts from the 9/29/2020 In view of the Parties’ Non- || | deposition transcript of Dr. Opposition, this document is Lehmann (Horak Decl., Ex. C) ORDERED to be filed > || | (Doc. No. 264-2) publicly.

6 Excerpts from LaMotta expert In view of the Parties’ Non- || | report (Horak Decl., Ex. D) Opposition, this document is (Doc. No. 264-3) ORDERED to be filed 8 publicly.

9 || | Excerpts from the 4/27/2021 In view of the Parties’ Non- || | deposition transcript of Mr. Opposition, this document is LaMotta (Horak Decl., Ex. E) ORDERED to be filed 11 (Doc. No. 264-4) publicly.

12 || | Excerpts from 11/24/2021 Joint In view of the Parties’ Non- B Proposed Pretrial Conference Opposition, this document is Order (Horak Decl., Ex. F) ORDERED to be filed || | (Doc. No. 264-5) publicly.

15 || | Document bearing Bates In view of the Parties’ Non- number WTRI00098477 Opposition, this document is (Horak Decl., Ex. H) (Doc. No. ORDERED to be filed || | 264-6) publicly.

18 PMI’s Motion in Limine No. 4 In view of the Parties’ Non- (Doc. No. 264) Opposition, this document is 19 ORDERED to be filed 20 publicly.

2] Excerpts from LaMotta expert | [PP 82; 91-93; 95— | GRANTED. Previously sealed report (Horak Decl., Ex. A) 96 pursuant to the Court’s August || | (Doc. No. 268-1) 10, 2021 Order.

23 || | Excerpts from the 4/27/2021 283:9-14; 284:9- | GRANTED. deposition transcript of Mr. 12; 284:16—21; LaMotta (Horak Decl., Ex. B) | 284:25-285:19; 25 (Doc. No. 268-2) 286:1; 287:22 || | Document bearing Bates WTRI00041351 | GRANTED-IN-PART and 17 number WTRI00041351 DENIED-IN-PART. (Horak Decl., Ex. C) (Doc. No. || | 268-3) 1 Document Portions Order 2 WTRI’s request to seal the entirety of this page because it “identifies customers” is not 4 narrowly tailored.

WTRI is instead DIRECTED to publicly re-file this 7 document with specific customer names redacted.

Document bearing Bates Entirety GRANTED-IN-PART and number WTRI00094198 DENIED-IN-PART.

10 (Horak Decl., Ex. D) (Doc. No. 268-4) WTRI’s request to seal the entirety of this document 12 because it “identifies potential customers” is not narrowly tailored.

15 WTRI is instead DIRECTED to publicly re-file this document with specific 17 customer names redacted.

18 Document bearing Bates Entirety GRANTED-IN-PART and number WTRI00141333 DENIED-IN-PART. (Horak Decl., Ex. E) (Doc. No. 268-5) WTRI’s request to seal the 21 entirety of this document because it “identifies potential 22 customers” is not narrowly 23 tailored.

WTRI is instead DIRECTED 25 to publicly re-file this document with specific customer names redacted.

Document bearing Bates February 22, 2018 GRANTED-IN-PART and number WTRI00448157 e-mail DENIED-IN-PART.

1 Document Portions Order (Horak Decl., Ex. F) (Doc. No. (WTRI00448158– 268-6) WTRI00448160) WTRI’s request to seal the entirety of the February 22, 4 2018 e-mail, because it “identifies customers” is not narrowly tailored.

7 WTRI is instead DIRECTED to publicly re-file this document with specific 9 customer names redacted.

10 PMI’s Motion in Limine No. 2 In view of the Parties’ Non- (Doc. No. 268) Opposition, this document is ORDERED to be filed 12 publicly.

13 Excerpts from the 9/28/2020 251:3; 255:3 GRANTED deposition transcript of Dr. DiBello (Horak Decl., Ex. C) (Doc. No. 273-1) Excerpts from LaMotta expert ¶¶ 79; 82; 91–93; GRANTED. Previously report (Horak Decl., Ex. D) 95–96; 102; sealed pursuant to the Court’s (Doc. No. 273-2) Footnote 192; ¶ August 10, 2021 Order.

18 103 Excerpts from the 4/27/2021 In view of the Parties’ Non- deposition transcript of Mr. Opposition, this document is LaMotta (Horak Decl., Ex. E) ORDERED to be filed (Doc. No. 273-3) publicly.

Excerpts from Irwin expert Entirety GRANTED-IN-PART and report (Horak Decl., Ex. F) DENIED-IN-PART.

23 (Doc. No. 273-4) 24 WTRI’s request to seal the entirety of this exhibit, which includes numerous pages of 26 non-confidential information, including a table of contents, is not narrowly tailored. !

2 WTRI is instead DIRECTED 3 to publicly re-file this document with specific 4 customer names and pricing 5 information redacted.

Document identified by Bates | Entirety This document was not lodged || | number WTRI00448657 on the docket. Accordingly, the 7 court takes no position as to whether it can properly be 8 sealed in its entirety.

9 || | PMI’s Motion in Limine No. 5 Page 6, lines 18 GRANTED.

10 (Doc. No. 273) and 20 11 Index of Exhibits ISO PMI’s Despite the fact this document Motion in Limine No. 9 (Doc. was lodged for sealing, no || | No. 278) Party has provided any reason 13 for why it should be sealed.

For these reasons, this 14 document is ORDERED to be 15 filed publicly.

16 Excerpts from the 9/28/2020 121:13; 121:15; GRANTED. deposition transcript of Dr. 122:6; 128:3 || | DiBello (Bakewell Decl., Ex. 18 A) (Doc. No. 278-1) 19 Excerpts from the 10/6/2020 In view of the Parties’ Non- deposition transcript of Dr. Opposition, this document is || | DiBello (Bakewell Decl., Ex. ORDERED to be filed >] B) (Doc. No. 278-2) publicly.

Excerpts from the 9/25/2020 In view of the Parties’ Non- 22 deposition transcript of Mr. Opposition, this document is 23 Chamberlain (Bakewell Decl., ORDERED to be filed 34 Ex. C) (Doc. No. 278-3) publicly.

Excerpts from the 4/27/2021 In view of the Parties’ Non- 25 deposition transcript of Mr. Opposition, this document is || | LaMotta (Bakewell Decl., Ex. ORDERED to be filed 57 D) (Doc. No. 278-4) publicly.

28 report (Bakewell Decl., Ex. E sealed pursuant to the Court’s !

2 || | (Doc. No. 278-5) August 10, 2021 Order.

3 Excerpts from the deposition In view of the Parties’ Non- || | transcript of Dr. Lehmann Opposition, this document is Bakewell Decl., Ex. F) (Doc. ORDERED to be filed > || | No. 278-6) publicly.

6 || | PMI’s Motion in Limine No. 9 In view of the Parties’ Non- || | (Doc. No. 277) Opposition, this document is ORDERED to be filed 8 publicly.

9 || | Declaration of EJB ISO PMI’s In view of the Parties’ Non- || | Motion in Limine No. 9 (Doc. Opposition, this document is Nos. 277-1) ORDERED to be filed 11 publicly.

12 || | E-mail chain between Matthew In view of the Parties’ Non- B Busch, Justin Gray, Eric Opposition, this document is Bakewell and Hannah ORDERED to be filed || | McMeans dated August 25-31, publicly.

15 2020 (McMeans Decl., Ex. A) (Doc. No. 281-4) 16 Declaration of Matthew J. In view of the Parties’ Non- || | Busch in Support of PMI's Ex Opposition, this document is 18 Parte Application to Extend the ORDERED to be filed Deadline to Serve Written publicly.

19 || | Discovery Requests (McMeans 20 Decl., Ex. B) (Doc. No. 281-5) Excerpts from the 10/1/2020 In view of the Parties’ Non- 21 deposition transcript of Mr. Opposition, this document is 22 Rossi (McMeans Decl., Ex. C) ORDERED to be filed (Doc. No. 281-6) publicly.

Excerpts from the 10/2/2020 In view of the Parties’ Non- 24 deposition transcript of Mr. Opposition, this document is || | Burke (McMeans Decl., Ex. D) ORDERED to be filed (Doc. No. 281-7) publicly.

Excerpts from the 3/11/2021 In view of the Parties’ Non- || | deposition transcript of Mr. Opposition, this document is 28 Mancus (McMeans Decl., Ex. ORDERED to be filed !

2 || | E) (Doc. No. 281-8) publicly.

3 Excerpts from the expert report In view of the Parties’ Non- || | of Mr. Ferrara (McMeans Opposition, this document is Decl., Ex. F) (Doc. No. 281-9) ORDERED to be filed 5 publicly.

6 Excerpts from the In view of the Parties’ Non- || | Supplemental expert report of Opposition, this document is Mr. Ferrara (McMeans Decl., ORDERED to be filed |! | Ex. G) (Doc. No. 281-10) publicly.

9 || | Excerpts from the expert report In view of the Parties’ Non- || | of Dr. Greenspun (McMeans Opposition, this document is Decl., Ex. H) (Doc. No. 281- ORDERED to be filed 11 11) publicly.

12 || | Excerpts from the second In view of the Parties’ Non- B supplemental expert report of Opposition, this document is Dr. Greenspun (McMeans ORDERED to be filed || | Decl., Ex. I) (Doc. No. 281-12) publicly.

15 WTRI’s 30(b)(6) Notice of In view of the Parties’ Non- 16 Deposition of PMI dated Opposition, this document is 9/8/2020 (McMeans Decl., Ex. ORDERED to be filed || | J) (Doc. No. 281-13) publicly.

18 || | WTRI’s 30(b)(6) Notice of In view of the Parties’ Non- Deposition of PMI dated Opposition, this document is || | 2/1/2021 (McMeans Decl., Ex. ORDERED to be filed || | K) (Doc. No. 281-14) publicly.

2] PMI’s Notice of Motion in In view of the Parties’ Non- Limine No. 6/Motion in Opposition, this document is |) | Limine No. 6 (Doc. No. 281, ORDERED to be filed 23 281-1) publicly.

74 || | Declaration of Hannah Despite the fact this document McMeans in support of PMI’s was lodged for sealing, no || | Motion in Limine No. 6 (Doc. Party has provided any reason || | No. 281-2) for why it should be sealed.

For these reasons, this 27 document is ORDERED to be 8 filed publicly.

2 || | Excerpts from the 4/28/2021 In view of the Parties’ Non- || | deposition transcript of Mr. Opposition, this document is Ferrara (Yu Decl., Ex. A) ORDERED to be filed || | (Doc. No. 288-2 at 1-22) publicly.

5 || | Excerpts from the 5/3/2021 In view of the Parties’ Non- 6 deposition transcript of Dr. Opposition, this document is Greenspun (Yu Decl., Ex. B) ORDERED to be filed || | (Doc. No. 288-2 at 23-50) publicly.

8 || | Excerpts from the 4/7/2021 In view of the Parties’ Non- 9 expert report of Mr. Ferrara Opposition, this document is (Yu Decl., Ex. C) (Doc. No. ORDERED to be filed || | 288-2 at 51-62) publicly.

11 Excerpts from the 4/7/2021 In view of the Parties’ Non- expert report of Dr. Greenspun Opposition, this document is |! | (yu Decl., Ex. D) (Doc. No. ORDERED to be filed || | 288-2 at 63-73) publicly.

14 Excerpts from the 12/11/2020 | 79; 82; 91-93; | GRANTED. Previously expert report of Mr. LaMotta 95-96; 102; sealed pursuant to the Court’s 15 (Yu Decl., Ex. E) (Doc. No. Footnote 192; | August 10, 2021 Order.

16 || | 288-2 at 74-86) 103, 105 || | Excerpts from the 4/27/2021 268:16—-19; 284:9- | GRANTED. Previously deposition transcript of Mr. 12; 284:16-21; sealed pursuant to the Court’s |) | LaMotta (Yu Decl., Ex. F) 284:25-285:19 August 10, 2021 Order.

19 |] | (Doe. No. 288-2 at 87-126) 0 Excerpts from the 4/7/2021 In view of the Parties’ Non- expert report of Dr. Surati (Yu Opposition, this document is || | Decl., Ex. G) (Doc. No. 288-2 ORDERED to be filed || [at 127-136) publicly.

73 Excerpts from the 4/23/2021 In view of the Parties’ Non- deposition transcript of Dr. Opposition, this document is || | Surati (Yu Decl., Ex. H) (Doc. ORDERED to be filed No. 288-2 at 137-175) publicly.

Excerpts from 12/11/2020 In view of the Parties’ Non- 26 expert report of Dr. Opposition, this document is || | Raisinghani (Yu Decl., Ex. I) ORDERED to be filed 58 (Doc. No. 288-2 at 176-181) publicly.

1 Document Portions Order Excerpts from 4/7/2021 expert In view of the Parties’ Non- report of Dr. Raisinghani (Yu Opposition, this document is Decl., Ex. J) (Doc. No. 288-2 ORDERED to be filed at 182–219) publicly.

5 Excerpts from 4/20/2021 In view of the Parties’ Non- deposition of Dr. Raisinghani Opposition, this document is (Yu Decl., Ex. K) (Doc. No. ORDERED to be filed 288-2 at 220–240) publicly.

8 PMI’s Daubert Motion (Doc. In view of the Parties’ Non- No. 288) Opposition, this document is ORDERED to be filed 10 publicly.

11 Index of Exhibits ISO PMI’s Despite the fact this document Daubert Motion (Doc. No. was lodged for sealing, no 288-1) Party has provided any reason 13 for why it should be sealed.

For these reasons, this document is ORDERED to be 15 filed publicly.

16 WTRI’s Opposition to PMI’s Despite the fact this document MILs (Doc. No. 295) was lodged for sealing, no 17 Party has provided any reason 18 for why it should be sealed.

For these reasons, this 19 document is ORDERED to be 20 filed publicly.

Excerpts from the 9/30/2020 In view of the Parties’ Non- deposition transcript of Mr. Opposition, this document is Weiss (Patiño Decl., Ex. 1) ORDERED to be filed (Doc. No. 295-1) publicly.

Index of Exhibits to Bakewell Despite the fact this document Declaration (Doc. No. 297) was lodged for sealing, no 25 Party has provided any reason for why it should be sealed.

For these reasons, this 27 document is ORDERED to be filed publicly. !

2 || | Document bearing Bates In view of the Parties’ Non- || | numbers N0004413—N0004415 Opposition, this document is (Bakewell Decl., Ex. A) (Doc. ORDERED to be filed || | No. 297-1) publicly.

5 || | KMS Technology Webpage Despite the fact this document 6 (Bakewell Decl., Ex. B) (Doc. was lodged for sealing, no No. 297-2) Party has provided any reason 7 for why it should be sealed.

8 For these reasons, this document is ORDERED to be 9 filed publicly.

10 || | Excerpts from the 10/2/2020 In view of the Parties’ Non- deposition transcript of Ms. Opposition, this document is i Holloway (Bakewell Decl., Ex. ORDERED to be filed || | C) (Doc. No. 297-3) publicly.

13 Excerpts from the 9/28/2020 In view of the Parties’ Non- deposition transcript of Dr. Opposition, this document is || | DiBello (Bakewell Decl., Ex. ORDERED to be filed |} | D) (Doc. No. 297-4) publicly.

16 || | Document bearing Bates In view of the Parties’ Non- numbers WTRIO00031171-— Opposition, this document is || | WTRI00031179 (Bakewell ORDERED to be filed || | Decl., Ex. E) (Doc. No. 297-5) publicly.

19 || | Document bearing Bates In view of the Parties’ Non- numbers WTRIO01 14404— Opposition, this document is || | WTRI00114413 (Bakewell ORDERED to be filed Decl., Ex. F) (Doc. No. 297-6) publicly.

09 WTRI webpage last accessed Despite the fact this document on April 19, 2022 (Bakewell was lodged for sealing, no || | Decl., Ex. G) (Doc. No. 297-7) Party has provided any reason 4 for why it should be sealed.

For these reasons, this 25 document is ORDERED to be %6 filed publicly.

77 WTRI webpage last accessed Despite the fact this document on April 19, 2022 (Bakewell was lodged for sealing, no || | Decl., Ex. H) (Doc. No. 297-8) Party has provided any reason !

2 for why it should be sealed.

For these reasons, this 3 document is ORDERED to be 4 filed publicly.

5 Document bearing Bates In view of the Parties’ Non- numbers PMI00091993— Opposition, this document is || | PM100091994 (Bakewell ORDERED to be filed || | Decl., Ex. I) (Doc. No. 297-5) publicly.

9 (Doc. No. 297-9) Document bearing Bates In view of the Parties’ Non- || | numbers PMI00180159— Opposition, this document is || | PMI00180162 (Bakewell ORDERED to be filed 1 Decl., Ex. J) (Doc. No. 297-10) publicly.

Document bearing Bates In view of the Parties’ Non- || | numbers PMI00203097— Opposition, this document is || | PM100203098 (Bakewell ORDERED to be filed Decl., Ex. K) (Doc. No. 297- publicly.

14 11) || | Excerpts from the 9/30/2020 In view of the Parties’ Non- 16 deposition transcript of Mr. Opposition, this document is Weiss (Bakewell Decl., Ex. L) ORDERED to be filed || | (Doc. No. 297-12) publicly.

18 || | Email dated November 23, Despite the fact this document 19 2021 with Subject “Re: WTRI was lodged for sealing, no v. PMI: PMI’s Witness List Party has provided any reason || | and Deposition Requests” for why it should be sealed. >] (Bakewell Decl., Ex. M) (Doc. For these reasons, this No. 297-13) document is ORDERED to be 22 filed publicly.

23 Index of Exhibits to Sardina Despite the fact this document Declaration (Doc. No. 297-14) was lodged for sealing, no 24 Party has provided any reason 25 for why it should be sealed.

For these reasons, this 26 document is ORDERED to be 27 filed publicly. [Dosmowteingnans ti PSTN !

2 || | numbers PM10007273-— Opposition, this document is 3 PMI00017304 (Sardina Decl., ORDERED to be filed Ex. A) (Doc. No. 297-15) publicly.

4 || | Document bearing Bates In view of the Parties’ Non- 5 number PMI00581150 (Sardina Opposition, this document is Decl., Ex. B) (Doc. No. 297- ORDERED to be filed |! | 16) publicly.

7 I | PMI's Opposition to WTRI's This document was already g || | Motions in Limine (Doc. No. filed publicly.

9 298) Excerpts from the 12/11/2020 In view of the Parties’ Non- || | expert report of Ms. Irwin Opposition, this document is 11 (Bakewell Decl., Ex. A) (Doc. ORDERED to be filed No. 300-3) publicly.

Excerpts from the 4/29/2021 In view of the Parties’ Non- || | deposition transcript of Ms. Opposition, this document is 14 Irwin (Bakewell Decl., Ex. B) ORDERED to be filed (Doc. No. 300-4) publicly.

I5 Excerpts from the 12/11/2020 In view of the Parties’ Non- || | expert report of Mr. Stepan Opposition, this document is 7 (Bakewell Decl., Ex. C) (Doc. ORDERED to be filed No. 300-5) publicly.

18 Excerpts from the 5/6/2021 In view of the Parties’ Non- || | deposition transcript of Mr. Opposition, this document is Stepan (Bakewell Decl., Ex. D) ORDERED to be filed 20 (Doc. No. 300-6) publicly.

21 Excerpts from the 12/11/2020 In view of the Parties’ Non- || | expert report of Dr. Ferri Opposition, this document is (Bakewell Decl., Ex. E) (Doc. ORDERED to be filed || | No. 300-7) publicly.

24 |! | Excerpts from the 12/11/2020 In view of the Parties’ Non- || | expert report of Dr. Opposition, this document is Raisinghani (Bakewell Decl., ORDERED to be filed || | Ex. F) (Doc. No. 300-8) publicly.

27 || | Excerpts from the 9/28/2020 In view of the Parties’ Non- 28 deposition transcript of Dr. Opposition, this document is !

2 || | DiBello (Bakewell Decl., Ex. ORDERED to be filed 3 G) (Doc. No. 300-9) publicly.

Excerpts from 10/2/2020 Despite the fact this document 4 deposition transcript of Jesse was lodged for sealing, no 5 Sardina (Bakewell Decl., Ex. Party has provided any reason H) (Doc. No. 300-10) for why it should be sealed.

6 For these reasons, this 7 document is ORDERED to be filed publicly.

Excerpts from the 9/29/2020 In view of the Parties’ Non- 9 deposition transcript of Ms. Opposition, this document is || | Redden (Bakewell Decl., Ex. I) ORDERED to be filed 1 (Doc. No. 300-11) publicly.

Excerpts from 9/25/2020 Despite the fact this document || | deposition transcript of Sterling was lodged for sealing, no 13 Chamberlain (Bakewell Decl., Party has provided any reason Ex. J) (Doc. No. 300-12) for why it should be sealed.

14 For these reasons, this 15 document is ORDERED to be filed publicly.

Excerpts from the 10/1/2020 In view of the Parties’ Non- || | deposition transcript of Mr. Opposition, this document is 18 Rossi (Bakewell Decl., Ex. K) ORDERED to be filed (Doc. No. 300-13) publicly.

19 Excerpts from the 9/23/2020 In view of the Parties’ Non- || | deposition transcript of Mr. Opposition, this document is >] Carter-Bey (Bakewell Decl., ORDERED to be filed Ex. L) (Doc. No. 300-14) publicly.

22 |! | Declaration from Mr. Aldrich In view of the Parties’ Non- 23 dated 8/16/2021 (with exhibits) Opposition, this document is (Bakewell Decl., Ex. M) (Doc. ORDERED to be filed |! | No. 300-15) publicly.

25 || | Declaration from Dr. Valerdi In view of the Parties’ Non- || | dated 8/16/2021 (with exhibits) Opposition, this document is (Bakewell Decl., Ex. N) (Doc. ORDERED to be filed |) | No. 300-16) publicly.

1 Document Portions Order Declaration from Mr. Fincher In view of the Parties’ Non- dated 8/16/2021 (with exhibits) Opposition, this document is (Bakewell Decl., Ex. O) (Doc. ORDERED to be filed No. 300-17) publicly.

5 PMI's Opposition to WTRI's In view of the Parties’ Non- Daubert Motion (Doc. No. 300) Opposition, this document is ORDERED to be filed 7 publicly.

8 Evidentiary Objections (Doc. Despite the fact this document No. 300-1) was lodged for sealing, no Party has provided any reason 10 for why it should be sealed.

For these reasons, this document is ORDERED to be 12 filed publicly.

13 Index of Exhibits (Doc. No. Despite the fact this document 300-2) was lodged for sealing, no Party has provided any reason 15 for why it should be sealed.

For these reasons, this document is ORDERED to be 17 filed publicly.

18 PMI’s Reply In Support Of Page 5, lines 2–4; GRANTED MIL No. 5 (Doc. No. 319) Pages 7-8, 19 Footnote 2 21 In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Parties’ Joint Motion to Seal. Within thirty days of the electronic docketing of this Order: 24 1. To the extent they have not already, the Parties are ORDERED to publicly file all content not covered by this Order. The Parties' filings should clearly identify each document, and which document it replaces.

27 2. The Clerk of Court shall FILE the currently lodged documents under seal: Doc. Nos. 252-2; 252-3; 252-4; 252-5; 252-6; 252-7; 252-8; 252-10; 252-12; 252-1; 252; 257-1; 264-1; 268-1; 268-2; 268-3; 268-4; 268-5; 268-6; 273-1; 273-2; 273-4; 273; 278- || 1; 278-5; 288-2; 319.

3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 Dated: June 3, 2022 5 “ 6 HohJinsook Ohta 7 United States District Judge