1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CDK GLOBAL, LLC, Case No. 25-cv-01394-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE 9 v. MOTIONS TO SEAL

10 TEKION CORP., et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 61, 64, 67, 72, 80 Defendants. 11

12 13 In connection with the parties’ briefing on CDK’s motion for preliminary injunction, the 14 parties each filed administrative motions to seal portions of the briefing and attached evidence. 15 (Dkt. Nos. 61, 64, 67, 72, & 80.)1 InDesign does not seek to seal any of its filed information under 16 seal, but both Tekion and CDK seek to seal several portions of their own and other parties’ 17 briefings. 18 The Court begins with “a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. 19 State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 2003). Because “the preliminary 20 injunction motion here [is] more than tangentially related to the merits of the case,” the Court must 21 “consider the documents under the compelling reasons standard.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 22 Grp., LLC,

(9th Cir. 2016). “In general, compelling reasons sufficient to 23 outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such court 24 files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 25 Honolulu,

, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks omitted). In addition, under 26 Civil Local Rule 79–5, sealing is only permitted where the parties have “establishe[d] that the 27 1 document or portions thereof is privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to 2 protection under the law.” Civ. L.R. 79–5(b). It requires the parties to “narrowly tailor” their 3 requests only to the sealable material. Id. at 79–5(d). Thus, although sometimes it may be 4 appropriate to seal a document in its entirety, whenever possible a party must redact. See 5 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183 (noting a preference for redactions so long as they “have the virtue 6 of being limited and clear”). 7 In each of its motions to seal, CDK argues for four categories of information which it 8 claims must be sealed. First, information regarding its network infrastructure and security systems 9 and protocols should be sealed in favor of CDK’s “ability to prevent hacking and spamming.” In 10 re Yahoo! Inc. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., No. 16-md-02752-LHK,

, at 11 *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2018) (citations omitted). Second, information revealing the technical 12 functionality of its DMS, which may harm CDK’s “competitive standing and divulges terms of 13 confidential contracts, contract negotiations, or trade secrets.” Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Qualcomm 14 Inc., No. 17-cv-00220-LHK,

, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019). Third, information 15 about its confidential license agreements with third parties which also risks harming its 16 competitive standing.

And finally, information in certain documents revealing business 17 strategies and confidential negotiations and internal business operations. See Transperfect Glob., 18 Inc. v. Motionpoint Corp., No. 10-cv-02590-CW,

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 19 2013) (sealing documents which contained proprietary information about [the party’s] business 20 operations and technology.”). Tekion, on its part, seeks to seal documents relating to its business 21 operations and technological capabilities, and to confidential agreements. 22 Below, the Court takes each document in turn. Citations to pages reference the internal 23 page numbering of each exhibit as cited by the parties in their own motions. 24 25 26 27 Dkt. No. Requesting Portion(s) Ruling 1 Party Sought to be 2 Sealed Plaintiff’s CDK 2:14; Denied in part. Portions of the motion for 3 Motion for 4:16-21; preliminary injunction do not appear to disclose Preliminary 5:8-12, 18; any confidential business information and 4 Injunction 6:8-9, 17, 19-28; reiterate discussions CDK and other parties had 7:1-6, 19-25; in open court. See Dkt. No. 44-4 at 2:14. Other 5 8:4-15, 18-20; portions seek to seal language derived from 6 9:9-10; exhibits where the Court rules sealing is not 10:7; proper. (See, e.g., id. at 5:8-12; 7:19-25.) Other 7 12:21, 22, 23, 28; places where CDK seeks sealing likewise do not 13:1, 19, 25, 26; disclose information not already discussed in 8 14:20, 21; open court, the public briefings, or the complaint 15:24; or simply do not indicate proprietary or 9 16:8-12, 14, 15; confidential information. (Id. at 8:11-13 10 18:6, 27, 28; (starting with “Tekion uses…” through 19:17, 18, 24-28; “structure of the DMS”); 8:15 (“running these 11 20:2; queries”). Similarly non-sealable portions are 21:23, 24; 8:18-10; 10:7; 12:28-13:1; 13:19; 14:20-21; 12 22:3; 15:24; 16:8-12, 14, 15; 19:17; 21:23, 24; 22:3; 23:1-3; 23:1-3; 24:14-15. 13 24:14-15 14 Granted in part. Other than portions of the brief indicated above, CDK has shown the 15 remaining lines disclose confidential agreements and confidential information about how CDK’s 16 DMS works and its business practices. 17 LaGreca CDK ¶ 7 Denied in part. Portions of the declaration 18 Declaration ¶ 9 sought to be sealed merely repeat what is already ¶ 10 alleged in the public complaint or was stated in 19 ¶ 13 open court, sometimes word for word. See, e.g., ¶ 15 ¶¶ 31-34, 60-61, 71. Paragraph 70 contained no 20 ¶ 16 highlighting and the exhibits cited in it are not 21 ¶¶ 18-25 sought to be sealed either. ¶ 27 22 ¶¶ 31-34 Granted in part. Portions of the declaration ¶ 36 disclose contracts not mentioned or disclosed 23 ¶ 42 either in open court or in any of the public ¶ 46 briefing. Further, the declaration details the 24 ¶ 49 DMS software layout and intricacies of CDK’s 25 ¶¶ 57-61 technology that are not publicly available. This ¶ 68 includes information about how the DMS 26 ¶ 70 functions and what accounts and locations were ¶¶ 71-74 allegedly accessed by Tekion. 27 ¶¶ 76-85 ¶ 92 15, 16, 18-25, 42, 46, 49, 58-59, 68, 71-72, 76- 1 ¶ 94 85, 87-89, 92, and footnote 1. 2 Fn. 1 The rest of the exhibit is to remain unredacted. 3 Bales CDK ¶¶ 4-9 Granted in Part. Most of the cited paragraphs Declaration ¶ 15 contain confidential information or names of 4 ¶ 18 persons and companies not parties to this action. ¶ 19 However, ¶ 30 is highlighted in the attached 5 ¶ 29 exhibit although CDK does not appear to seek its 6 sealing. Accordingly, the Court orders sealed the paragraphs referenced in the left column 7 here, except ¶ 30 shall be unredacted.

8 Garcia CDK ¶¶ 2-28 Granted. The declaration includes redactions Declaration only insofar as they name parties not in suit with 9 confidential licensing agreements with CDK. 10 Further the redactions include nonpublic information about how Tekion allegedly 11 accesses the CDK DMS. Kiser CDK ¶¶ 2-9 Granted. For the reasons discussed as to the 12 Declaration Garcia declaration. 13 14 Swaminathan CDK ¶¶ 6-69; Granted in Part. Portions of the declaration Declaration Tables at 4-5, 7- seek to seal information disclosed in the 15 11; complaint or in open court. See ¶¶ 7, 23, 25. Pp. 7, 9, 28; Footnote 1 does not contain any detail about 16 Fn. 1-3, 7-10; “activity patterns” that reveals any confidential Exs. B-Q or proprietary information. All other 17 information is properly sealable. 18 So, the Court orders sealed (1) paragraphs 6, 8- 19 22, 24, 26-69; (2) the tables at pages 4-5 and 7- 11; (3) pages 7, 9, 28; (4) footnotes 2-3, and 7- 20 10; (5) Exhibits B-Q to the declaration.

21 Stroz CDK p. 2; Granted in Part. CDK’s proposed redactions 22 Declaration ¶ 12; of page 2 and the headings do not reveal any ¶¶ 28-31; proprietary information or any details about the 23 ¶ 38; functioning of its products that would create ¶ 40; cybersecurity risks. To the extent they reveal 24 ¶ 41; any information, this information was both ¶¶ 67-69; disclosed in the complaint and discussed in open 25 ¶¶ 72-76; court. The same is true of paragraphs 30, 31, 38, 26 ¶¶ 82-92; 68, 69, 72, and 97. The remaining paragraphs ¶¶ 94-97; sought to be sealed contain confidential technical 27 Headings VI.A- and cybersecurity information about CDK’s So, the Court orders sealed ¶¶ 12, 28-29, 40, 41, 1 67, 73-76, 82-92, 94-96. 2 Ex. 2 to CDK Entire Document Granted. This exhibit is accessible only 3 CDK’s through a protected dealer website. Motion Furthermore, the document details CDK’s 4 DMS’s technology and functionality.

5 Ex. 8 to CDK Highlighted Granted. The highlighted portions do not 6 CDK’s portions on pages disclose information in the public domain and Motion 1-14. include names and emails of persons not parties 7 to the litigation. Ex. 9 to CDK Highlighted Text Granted in part. This email exchange is 8 CDK’s on pages 1-3 detailed in the complaint and most of the Motion highlighted portions include names and emails 9 properly redacted. However, CDK also 10 highlights a line from Mr. Lampert’s email on December 17, 2024 which states “If for any 11 reason they're not able to, or they don't give you AR Approval, then we can be your Plan B.” 12 (Dkt. No. 44-13 at 3.) Because this line is 13 quoted in the complaint and referenced in public briefing as well as in open court, CDK has not 14 shown this line is proper for sealing. Otherwise, the Court grants CDK’s proposed redactions. 15 Exs. 10, 11, CDK Pp. 1, 11. Granted. These redactions are minimal and 16, and 17 to protect only confidential information for 16 CDK’s nonparties to the present case. 17 Motion Exs. 12-15 to CDK Pp. 1, 10 Granted. These redactions are minimal and 18 CDK’s protect only confidential information for Motion nonparties to the present case. 19 Ex. 18 to CDK Highlighted text Granted. The redactions on page 1 are minimal CDK’s on pp. 1, 2-5. as they only seek to redact confidential nonparty 20 Motion information. As for pages 2-5, these contain 21 properly sealed internal business information. Tekion’s Tekion p. 5; Granted. Tekion’s “redactions are narrowly 22 Opposition pp. 5-6; tailored and minimal,” and do not discuss To CDK’s p. 21 information the Court relied upon in arriving at 23 Motion its decision. Regis Metro Assocs., Inc. v. NBR 24 Co., LLC, No. 20-cv-02309-DMR,

, at *14 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2022). 25 CDK p. 5 Granted in part. Most of CDK’s red highlights 26 p. 6 are limited only to confidential, non-public p. 11 information. However, at 12:25-26, CDK seeks 27 p. 12 to seal information about Tekion’s alleged use of p. 18 both in its public complaint and mentioned in 1 p. 19 open court. So, the request is granted except as 2 p. 20 to the red highlighting at 12:25-26. p. 23 3 Decl. of Mr. Tekion 5:15-17 Denied. The only portion of Mr. Livingstone’s Livingstone declaration which Tekion seeks to seal is the 4 heart of Tekion’s defense and only reveals what the parties have openly discussed in court or is 5 revealed in the complaint. 6 CDK ¶ 15 Granted. CDK’s limited highlighting of this ¶ 18 exhibit applies to information about third-party 7 ¶ 19 licensees subject to a confidentiality agreement with CDK. 8 Decl. of Mr. Tekion ¶ 11; Granted in part. Paragraphs 11 and 21-23 Fox ¶ 17; disclose confidential or internal business 9 ¶¶ 18-19; information, in part relating to the functioning of 10 ¶¶ 21-25. Tekion’s migration process and its agreement with CDK. However, paragraphs 17 and 18-19 11 involve information already disclosed in the complaint, public briefs, and by the parties in 12 open court. And Tekion does not indicate what 13 portions of paragraphs 24 and 25 it seeks to seal.

14 So, the Court orders sealing only of paragraphs 11, and 21-23. 15 CDK ¶ 18 Granted in part. For the reasons stated in the ¶ 19 entry above, the Court orders sealing only of the 16 ¶ 20 red highlighted portions of ¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23, and 17 ¶ 21 28. CDK’s request as to the highlighting of the ¶ 22 remaining paragraphs is DENIED. 18 ¶ 23 ¶ 25 19 ¶ 28 Ex. A to Tekion Entire Document Granted. This agreement by its terms is 20 Decl. of Mr. confidential, the parties have not discussed the 21 Fox details of the agreement in open court, and the only fact that is a matter of public record is that 22 such agreement exists. Decl. of Mr. CDK ¶ 15 Granted. The red highlighted portions only 23 Livingston ¶ 18 seek to seal confidential third-party information. 24 ¶ 19 Decl. of Mr. CDK ¶¶ 2c, d, f, g Granted. The red highlighted lines are specific 25 Newby ¶¶ 3b, c, e, f, and limited only to information that is ¶ 4d, e, h confidential and not disclosed publicly. 26 ¶ 5a, b, f, g, i, j ¶ 6a, b, d, e, f 27 ¶ 7c, d, e Tekion’s p. 46 deposition testimony InDesign attached in its 1 Opposition p. 56 opposition to CDK’s motion. CDK also seeks to 2 pp. 63-65 seal that exhibit, but sought to seal different p. 69 portions. CDK does not explain why it seeks to 3 p. 72 seal different portions of the same deposition p. 79 testimony. Because the motion to seal 4 p. 83 InDesign’s exhibit includes the full deposition p. 84 transcript, the Court’s ruling as to that exhibit 5 p. 95 applies here as well. 6 pp. 98-101 p. 104 7 p. 105 pp. 108-110 8 p. 112 p. 112 9 p. 128 10 p. 157 p. 159 11 p. 160, p. 165 12 p. 166 p. 173 13 Ex. 2 to CDK pp. 34-38 Granted in part. This exhibit is the same 14 Tekion’s p. 42 deposition testimony InDesign attached in its Opposition p. 53 opposition to CDK’s motion. For the same 15 p. 57 reasons indicated above, the Court’s ruling as to p. 63 that exhibit apply here as well. 16 p. 64 17 p. 69 p. 71 18 p. 77 p. 84 19 p. 86 p. 88 20 Ex. 3 to CDK p. 22 Granted in part. CDK’s limited highlighting of 21 Tekion’s p. 26 this exhibit applies to information about third- Opposition p. 28-36 party licensees subject to a confidentiality 22 pp. 38-41 agreement with CDK. Other information p. 48 involves the technical aspects of CDK’s DMS 23 p. 52 and its technical and security aspects not pp. 58-62 otherwise made public in this litigation. 24 p. 64 However, the line at 86:20 does not appear to 25 p. 65 disclose any information about any licensees, p. 66 especially in light of non-highlighted material. 26 pp. 81-83 Therefore, the Court accepts CDK’s redactions p. 86 except for the words “any other” at 86:20. 27 Ex. 4 to CDK pp. 14-17 Granted. CDK properly seeks to seal Opposition p. 22 confidentiality agreements as well as 1 p. 26 information about the functionality of the DMS 2 p. 27 that is not otherwise public information. p. 27 3 p. 31 pp. 39-42 4 pp. 45-53 p. 54 5 p. 57 6 p. 60 p. 61 7 p. 63 p. 64 8 p. 69 p. 72 9 p. 73 10 p. 76 p. 79 11 p. 97 Ex. 5 to CDK pp. 28-30 Granted. CDK’s highlighted portions are 12 Tekion’s pp. 33-36 adequately tailored to protect confidential Opposition p. 38 information, such as third parties not named in 13 p. 39 the suit, the manner in which CDK’s DMS 14 p. 41 functions, and matters of the DMS’s p. 42 cybersecurity. 15 p. 46 p. 47 16 pp. 54-57 17 p. 59 p. 61 18 p. 62 pp. 66-73 19 p. 75 p. 76 20 p. 84 21 p. 85 pp. 89-92 22 p. 107 p. 116 23 Ex. 6 to CDK pp. 18-20 Granted. CDK seeks to seal confidential third- Tekion’s p. 34 party information and details about the 24 Opposition p. 36 functionality of the CDK DMS. 25 pp. 42-44 p. 48 26 p. 49 p. 55 27 p. 56 InDesign’s CDK p. 12, fn. 9 Granted in part. At footnote 9, CDK properly 1 Opposition p. 19 seeks to seal information about its business with 2 p. 22 its customers regarding early termination fees. But the statements at pages 19 and 22 involve 3 what CDK itself alleges in its public complaint. Further the parties discussed these topics and 4 information in open court. So, the Court orders sealing only of the highlighted portion of 5 footnote 9. 6 Ex. 1 to CDK pp. 22-23 Denied in part. At 93:3-6, the highlighted InDesign’s pp. 25-27 sentences do not reveal any confidential 7 Opposition p. 36 information, especially since Mr. LaGreca pp. 40-46 specifically denies having knowledge as to the 8 pp. 54-73 question he is asked. The same is true of pp. 78-107 statements at 149-150. At page 124, and in the 9 pp. 108-10 highlighted portions of pages 127-131, Mr. 10 pp. 111-12 LaGreca is asked about and merely reiterates pp. 118-19 allegations CDK makes in its public complaint, 11 p. 124 motions, and at oral argument. pp. 127-31 12 p. 140 Otherwise, highlighted portions are adequately pp. 142-43 tailored to protect confidential information, such 13 pp. 149-50 as third parties not named in the suit, the manner 14 pp. 152-54 in which CDK’s DMS functions, and matters of pp. 156-57 the DMS’s cybersecurity. 15 p. 159 p. 160 So, the Court grants sealing of all highlighted 16 pp. 165-68 portions of this exhibit except for the highlighted 17 pp. 170-73 lines at pages 93, 124, 127-31, and 149-50. Ex. 6 to CDK pp. 34-35 Denied in part. The line at 88:4-5 does not 18 InDesign’s pp. 55-59 disclose confidential or proprietary information. Opposition pp. 63-65 And the lines 107:5-6, 107:15-22, and 108:6-11 19 pp. 67-69 all state information that was discussed in open p. 71 court and in public filings. All otherwise 20 p. 74 highlighted sections contain sealable material. 21 pp. 77-78 The Court therefore grants sealing of all pp. 80-82 highlighted portions of this exhibit but DENIES 22 pp. 84-88 as to the portions noted above. p. 90 23 pp. 93-94 pp. 107-11 24 pp. 118-22 25 pp. 124-25 pp. 127-28 26 pp. 130-31 pp. 133-34 27 pp. 139-44 pp. 157-60 1 pp. 162-64 2 pp. 166-67 pp. 171-73 3 p. 175 Ex. 7 to CDK pp. 97-101 Denied in part. The line at 101:5-7 only states 4 InDesign’s pp. 112-15 information publicly stated in court and in public Opposition filings so sealing is denied. The request is 5 otherwise GRANTED. 6 Ex. 10 to CDK pp. 68-70 Granted. All highlighted portions of the exhibit InDesign’s p. 72 disclose confidential third party information and 7 Opposition p. 73 include information about the technical functioning of CDK’s DMS. 8

9 Ex. 11 to CDK p. 83 Granted. The limited highlighted portions of InDesign’s p. 84 the exhibit are sealable for the same reasons as 10 Opposition stated in the above entry. 11 CDK’s CDK 3:11-13; Granted. CDK properly supports its request to Reply in 12:8, 12-13; seal these specific highlighted portions of its 12 Support of its 13:7-10; Reply which disclose non-public, confidential Motion for 14:9; information, such as third party licensee. 13 Preliminary 16:15-16, 18, 25; Further, CDK identifies technical details about 14 Injunction 17:7, 9, 11-13, its DMS and the audit leading to this suit which 15, 17, 22-24, 26- are not public and disclose information about the 15 28; functioning of its DMS. So, the Court adopts 18:1, 23-25; CDK’s redactions as described on the left-hand 16 19:8 column. 20:11, 16-17; 17 23:15 18 Tekion 2:26-27; Granted in part. Tekion identifies confidential 3:1-2, 13-16, 23, agreements with both CDK and licensees which 19 25-26; may properly remain sealed. Other highlighted 4:8-10; portions reveal Tekion’s financial and 20 8:8, 17; confidential business information which is also 9:16-18, 26-28; appropriate for sealing. However, Tekion’s 21 10:1; request to seal the parenthetical at 8:8 reveals 22 15:3-5; only information discussed in open court and 17:4-6; argument made in CDK’s public complaint. So, 23 21:21-23; the Court orders the sealing of the identified 23:10-12 portions on the left-hand column with the 24 exception of the highlighted text at page 8 line 8. 25 Supp. Decl. CDK 3:14-15, 19; Granted. The highlighted portions are proper of Mr. 4:17, 21; for sealing because they disclose confidential 26 LaGreca 5:4-10, 12-16, 23- third-party licensees who are not part of this suit, 27; information about how the DMS functions, and 27 6:1-2; confidential information about training DMS Ex. 21 to CDK p. 26 Granted in part. This exhibit is an excerpted 1 CDK’s p. 27 version of Mr. LaGreca’s April 17, 2025 2 Reply p. 36 transcript, which is the subject of prior motions p. 40 to seal. So, the Court reiterates its holding on 3 p. 44 what material is sealable as to this exhibit: p. 45 4 p. 46 At page 124, and in the highlighted portions of p. 54 pages 127-131, Mr. LaGreca is asked about and 5 p. 55 merely reiterates allegations CDK makes in its 6 p. 56 public complaint, motions, and at oral argument. p. 57 At page 149, the full question is unintelligible 7 p. 62 because the second half is excerpted out. p. 64 8 p. 66 Otherwise, highlighted portions are adequately p. 79 tailored to protect confidential information, such 9 p. 80 as third parties not named in the suit, the manner 10 p. 81 in which CDK’s DMS functions, and matters of p. 82 the DMS’s cybersecurity. 11 p. 85 p. 86 So, the Court grants sealing of all highlighted 12 p. 87 portions of this exhibit but DENIES as to the p. 88 highlighted lines at pages 127, 128, 131, and 13 p. 89 149. 14 p. 92 p. 95 15 p. 96 p. 97 16 p. 98 p. 102 17 p. 103 18 p. 104 p. 111 19 p. 112 p. 118 20 p. 119 21 p. 127 p. 128 22 p. 131 p. 142 23 p. 143 p. 149 24 p. 152 25 p. 153 p. 156 26 p. 157 p. 159 27 p. 166 p. 168 1 p. 170 2 p. 171 p. 172 3 p. 173 Ex. 22 to CDK p. 33 Granted. CDK properly seeks to seal 4 CDK’s p. 49 confidential third-party licensees who are not Reply p. 77 parties to the present action 5 p. 78 6 p. 79 Ex. 23 to CDK p. 31 Granted. CDK properly seeks to seal 7 CDK’s p. 40 information about third-party licensees subject to Reply p. 46 confidentiality agreements as well as 8 p. 49 information about the functionality of the DMS p. 52 that is not otherwise public information. 9 p. 54 10 p. 55 p. 61 11 p. 63 p. 64 12 p. 65 p. 67 13 p. 68 14 p. 70 p. 71 15 p. 72 p. 73 16 p. 77 17 p. 78 p. 79 18 p. 80 p. 81 19 p. 89 p. 90 20 p. 91 21 p. 93 p. 94 22 p. 95 Ex. 24 to CDK p. 39 Granted. CDK’s limited highlighting of this 23 CDK’s p. 40 exhibit applies to information about third-party Reply p. 41 licensees subject to a confidentiality agreement 24 p. 43 with CDK. Other information involves the 25 p. 45 technical aspects of CDK’s DMS and its p. 48 technical and security aspects not otherwise 26 p. 50 made public in this litigation. p. 51 27 p. 52 p. 56 1 p. 57 2 p. 75 p. 86 3 Ex. 25 to CDK Entire Document Granted. The exhibit includes only two pages CDK’s of testimony, both of which detail technical 4 Reply aspects of CDK’s DMS and which reveal information which may put the product’s 5 security at risk. 6 Ex. 26 to CDK Entire Document Denied. The exhibit contains several pages of CDK’s testimony, some of which includes confidential 7 Reply and technical material but other portions do not appear to disclose any information about Tekion, 8 InDesign, or CDK’s business. Because CDK’s motion does not specify what portions of the 9 document should be sealed, and because the 10 entire exhibit is not sealable, CDK’s motion to seal this exhibit is denied. 11 If CDK seeks to still seal portions of this exhibit, 12 it must specify which portions of the same are sealable and give reasons for the same. 13 Ex. 27 to CDK / Entire Document Granted. Unlike the excerpted portions of Mr. 14 CDK’s Tekion Swaminathan’s testimony, the excerpted Reply portions of Mr. Stroz’s testimony deals 15 exclusively with details about how Tekion accesses the CDK DMS which reveals technical 16 information about the CDK DMS and both 17 Tekion and CDK’s business practices. Ex. 28 to Tekion Entire Document Denied. Tekion’s request is overbroad. The 18 CDK’s exhibit contains over 70 pages of deposition Reply testimony, including Mr. Livingstone’s name 19 and even the parties’ lawyers introductions. Since the exhibit includes testimony that is not 20 proper for sealing, and Tekion does not offer a 21 more limited sealing request, the Court DENIES Tekion’s motion as to this exhibit. 22 CDK p. 12 Granted. CDK’s limited highlighting of this p. 49 exhibit applies to information about third-party 23 p. 50 licensees subject to a confidentiality agreement p. 64 with CDK. Further, these parties are not subject 24 p. 72 to the present suit. Other information goes to the 25 p. 73 technical aspects of CDK’s DMS and its p. 76 technical and security aspects not otherwise 26 p. 85 made public in this litigation, including in part p. 95 modes of Tekion’s access to DMS data. 27 p. 96 p. 98 1 p. 99 2 p. 100 p. 101 3 p. 102 p. 109 4 p. 121 p. 122 5 p. 125 6 p. 126 p. 127 7 p. 128 p. 134 8 p. 141 p. 144 9 p. 161 10 p. 162 p. 163 11 Ex. 29 to Tekion Entire Document Denied. Tekion’s request is overbroad. Tekion CDK’s seeks to seal information such as that Tekion’s 12 Reply purpose “was to assist dealers, “ (Dkt. No. 72-13 at 3), the statement “Let’s talk about 2023,” (id. 13 at 10), and that Tekion had dealer authorization 14 for its activities. (id. at 16.) Since the exhibit includes testimony that is not proper for sealing, 15 and Tekion does not offer more limited sealing request, the Court DENIES Tekion’s motion as 16 to this exhibit. 17 Ex. 31 to CDK p. 28 Granted. CDK seeks to seal only confidential CDK’s p. 75 information. 18 Reply p. 76 p. 93 19 p. 104 p. 105 20 p. 106 21 p. 107 p. 175 22 Ex. A to Tekion Entire Document Granted. The short deposition excerpt Tekion Tekion’s seeks to seal discloses information about its 23 Objections to business practices not made public in this Evidence litigation. . 24 Submitted in 25 CDK’s Reply 26 Ex. B to Tekion Entire Document Granted. For the same reasons stated in the Tekion’s prior entry. 27 Objections to I Submitted in CDK’s 2 Repl 3 The parties shall file public versions of each document described in the table above A according to the Court’s ruling as to each document no later than September 5, 2025. 5 This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 61, 64, 67, 72, and 80. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: August 6, 2025 8 9 ne CQYELINE SCOTT CORLEY 10 nited States District Judge 11 a 12

15 16

it

4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28