Court filing

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Thomson Reuters… — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 150)

No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC · Doc. 150 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 1 of 51

1 Susan D. Fahringer, Bar No. 21567 Gabriella Gallego, Bar No. 324226
SFahringer@perkinscoie.com GGallego@perkinscoie.com
2 Nicola C. Menaldo, pro hac vice PERKINS COIE LLP
3 NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com 3150 Porter Drive
Erin K. Earl, pro hac vice Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212
4 EEarl@perkinscoie.com Telephone: 650.838.4300
Anna M. Thompson, pro hac vice Facsimile: 650.838.4350
5 AnnaThompson@perkinscoie.com
PERKINS COIE LLP Hayden M. Schottlaender, pro hac vice
6 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 HSchottlaender@perkinscoie.com
7 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 PERKINS COIE LLP
Telephone: 206.359.8000 500 N. Akard Street, Suite 3300
8 Facsimile: 206.359.9000 Dallas, TX 75201-3347
Telephone: 214.965.7700
9 Attorneys for Defendant Facsimile: 214.965.7799
Thomson Reuters Corporation
10

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
14

15 CAT BROOKS and RASHEED Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC
SHABAZZ, individually and on behalf of
16 all others similarly situated, DEFENDANT THOMSON REUTERS’
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
17 Plaintiffs, UNDER SEAL CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION
18 v. (CIV. L.R. 7-11 AND 79-5)
19 THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION, Judge: Hon. Edward M. Chen
20 Defendant.
21

28
Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC THOMSON REUTERS’ ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 2 of 51

1 I. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

2 Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5, Defendant Thomson Reuters Corporation

3 (“Thomson Reuters”) submits this administrative motion (“Sealing Motion”) for leave to file

4 under seal certain materials (hereinafter, the “Designated Materials”) related to its opposition to

5 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (“Opposition”). Dkt. 124-03.

6 This Sealing Motion and its exhibits are supported by the following Memorandum of

7 Points and Authorities; the concurrently filed Declaration of Anna Mouw Thompson (“Thompson

8 Sealing Decl.”); the concurrently filed Declaration of Kevin Appold (“Appold Sealing Decl.”);

9 the Stipulated Protective Order (Dkt. 70) entered in this action; this Court’s Order regarding

10 Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should be

11 Sealed (Dkt. 147); and all pleadings and papers on file.

12 II. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

13 A. Legal Standard

14 There is a “strong presumption in favor of access” to court records, but “access to judicial

15 records is not absolute.” Kamanaka v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th

16 Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Ins., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The legal

17 standard applicable to whether a document should be sealed depends on whether the document is

18 attached to a dispositive motion or a non-dispositive motion. See id. at 1179-80. Documents

19 attached to dispositive motions—like motions for summary judgment—may be sealed only when

20 the proponent establishes “compelling reasons” for doing so. Id. at 1179. But documents attached

21 to non-dispositive motions that relate to the merits only tangentially—like motions for class

22 certification—may be sealed upon a lesser showing of good cause. Id. at 1180; see also In re

23 High-Tech Emp. Antitrust Litig., No. 11-CV-02509-LHK, 2013 WL 163779, at *2 n.1 (N.D. Cal.

24 Jan. 15, 2013) (noting that the “vast majority” of the courts within this district generally treat

25 class certification motions as non-dispositive); see also Ehret v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 14-cv-

26 00113-EMC, 2015 WL 12977024, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2015) (applying good cause standard

28
Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC -2- THOMSON REUTERS’ ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 3 of 51

1 to seal documents attached to class certification motion).1

2 The lesser, good cause standard applies here because the Designated Materials are

3 attached to Thomson Reuters’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. But even if

4 the higher, compelling reasons, standard applied, that standard is also met for the same reasons

5 discussed below and in the exhibits and declarations supporting this Sealing Motion.

6 What reasons are sufficient to justify sealing documents is generally “left to the sound

7 discretion of the trial court.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th

8 Cir. 2016) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978)). Some

9 commonly accepted examples of sealable materials, however, are “trade secrets,” Kamakana, 447

10 F.3d at 1179, and “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing,”

11 Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. The Designated Materials that Thomson Reuters seeks to seal fall into

12 those categories, as well as others.

13 B. Good cause and compelling reasons exist to fully seal the documents in Exhibit 1.

14 As further explained on a document-by-document basis in Exhibit 1, and as verified in the

15 Thompson and Appold Sealing Declarations submitted concurrently with this Motion, good cause

16 and compelling reasons exist to seal in their entirety the documents listed in Exhibit 1.

17 There are compelling reasons to seal some of the documents listed in Exhibit 1 because

18 they contain trade secrets. The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] trade secret may consist of any

19 formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one’s business, and which

20 gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it.”

21 Clark v. Bunker, 453 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1972) (quoting Restatement (First) of Torts § 757

22 cmt. b (Am. L. Inst. 1939)). A trade secret may “relate to the sale of goods or to other operations

23
1
One possible exception to the majority approach of applying the lesser, good cause
24
standard to materials attached to a class certification motion is when “a denial of class status
25 means that the stakes are too low for the named plaintiffs to continue the matter.” In re High-Tech
Emp. Antitrust Litig., 2013 WL 163779, at *2 n.1 (noting exception but applying good cause
26 standard); see also Circle Click Media LLC v. Regus Mgmt. Grp. LLC, No. 12-cv-04000-EMC,
2016 WL 8253802, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2016) (applying “compelling reasons” standard
27 where “individual claims are expected to be less than $3,000 each” in this case). But that
exception does not apply here because Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief (even if class certification
28
is denied) and do not merely seek nominal damages. See, e.g., Am. Compl. ¶¶ 82, 92, 130.
Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC -3- THOMSON REUTERS’ ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 4 of 51

1 in the business.” Id. Some of the documents, if unsealed, would reveal lists of customers and

2 third-party business partners, which easily constitute trade secrets. See, e.g., Morlife, Inc. v.

3 Perry, 56 Cal. App. 4th 1514, 1522 (1997) (“[A] customer list can be found to have economic

4 value because its disclosure would allow a competitor to direct its sales efforts to those customers

5 who have already shown a willingness to use a unique type of service or product as opposed to a

6 list of people who only might be interested.”); Snapkeys, Ltd. v. Google LLC, No. 19-CV-02658-

7 LHK, 2021 WL 1951250, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2021) (“[T]his Court has found compelling

8 reasons to seal confidential information regarding a party’s business partners where the disclosure

9 of that information would harm the party’s competitive standing.”).

10 Other materials listed in Exhibit 1 reveal either trade secrets or, at a minimum, “business

11 information that might harm [Thomson Reuters’] competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.

12 This includes, for example, training materials that address the confidential processes that

13 Thomson Reuters has put in place to prevent misuse and ensure security of CLEAR, as well as

14 informational flyers of limited distribution that compile information about CLEAR features or

15 how CLEAR is positioned in the marketplace or how CLEAR compares to competing products.

16 See, e.g., Yan Mei Zheng v. Toyota Motor Corp., No. 17-cv-06591-BLF, 2019 WL 6841324, at *2

17 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2019) (granting motion to seal “Defendants’ internal confidential training

18 materials”); In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig., No. 15-MD-02617-LHK, 2018 WL 3092256,

19 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2018) (sealing “descriptions of cybersecurity practices and protocols” as

20 well as “funding levels” for cybersecurity for security reasons and because disclosure “could

21 allow Anthem’s competitors to have an advantage over Anthem”); Opperman v. Path, Inc., No.

22 13-cv-00453-JST, 2017 WL 1036652, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2017) (sealing “training

23 guidelines for app reviewers” that could “compromise Apple’s review process if disclosed to the

24 public”); Adtrader, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 17-cv-07082-BLF, 2020 WL 6389186, at *2 (N.D.

25 Cal. Feb. 24, 2020) (sealing “information reflecting strategic business decisions” because “this

26 information could cause competitive harm to Google by providing insight into Google’s strategic

27 business and financial decisions, and the capabilities of Google’s systems”).

28 For these reasons and those further stated in Exhibit 1 and the supporting declarations,
Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC -4- THOMSON REUTERS’ ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 5 of 51

1 good cause and compelling reasons exist to fully seal the documents in Exhibit 1.

2 C. Good cause and compelling reasons exist to partially seal (i.e., redact) the
information in Exhibits 2 through 7.
3
Unlike with the materials listed in Exhibit 1—where the entire document represents a
4
trade secret or a compilation of “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive
5
standing,” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598—it is possible and feasible to use redactions to address the
6
confidentiality concerns that arise with respect to the information identified in Exhibits 2
7
through 7. These proposed redactions target information such as the names of specific CLEAR
8
customers or their employees and/or search subjects; the number of CLEAR customers or the
9
proportions of certain types of CLEAR customers; detailed financial figures related to CLEAR’s
10
revenue, profits, and costs; and the identities of third-party data licensors of data accessible
11
through CLEAR. Good cause and compelling reasons exist to seal this redacted information due
12
to competitive sensitivity, as further explained on a document-by-document basis in Exhibits 2
13
through 7, and as verified in the Thompson and Appold Sealing Declarations submitted
14
concurrently with this motion.
15
D. Certain documents are also designated as highly confidential by Plaintiffs.
16
Pursuant to Local Rule 79-5(e), Thomson Reuters also requests that Exhibits A-9 through
17
A-12 to the Declaration of Susan Fahringer in Support of Defendant Thomson Reuters’
18
Opposition be sealed for the additional reason that they have been designated by Plaintiffs as
19
“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under the terms of the Parties’
20
Protective Order, and hereby notifies Plaintiffs of their burden to establish that the redacted
21
information is sealable if the Court does not otherwise seal these materials based on Thomson
22
Reuters’ sealing request here and in Exhibit 1.
23
III. CONCLUSION
24
Thomson Reuters respectfully requests that the Court permit the filing of the Designated
25
Materials in Exhibits 1-7 under seal.
26

28
Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC -5- THOMSON REUTERS’ ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 6 of 51

1
Dated: January 26, 2023 Perkins Coie LLP
2

3 By: /s/ Susan D. Fahringer
Susan D. Fahringer
4 SFahringer@perkinscoie.com

5 Attorneys for Defendant Thomson Reuters
Corporation
6

28
Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC -6- THOMSON REUTERS’ ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 7 of 51

EXHIBIT 1
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 8 of 51

EXHIBIT 1
(re Declaration Exhibits - Entirely Sealed)

Ex. No. Portion(s) to Seal Basis to Seal

Fahringer Individual Report Plus Associates for Cat The Court has already found good cause
Decl. Ex. Brooks and compelling reasons to seal similar
A-9 CLEAR reports attached to the Mura
(entire document, bates numbered Declaration. See Order Re Plaintiffs’
PLAINTIFFS_005653 - Administrative Motion to Consider Whether
PLAINTIFFS_005661) Another Party’s Material Should be Sealed,
Dkt. 147 (“Order to Seal”) at 7.
Reveals confidential, non-public
information regarding the layout, categories
of content, and design of reports generated
through CLEAR, the names and contact
information third parties not subject to this
litigation, and information about named
Plaintiff Cat Brooks.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶¶ 4, 5. It
would also unnecessarily disclose
information about named Plaintiff Cat
Brooks and about third parties not subject to
this litigation.
This document has also been designated as
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -
ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY by Plaintiffs.

Fahringer Individual Report Plus Associates for Same as row above
Decl. Ex. Rasheed Shabazz (as to named Plaintiff Rasheed Shabazz)
A-10
(entire document, bates numbered
PLAINTIFFS_005538 -
PLAINTIFFS_005547)

Fahringer Risk Inform Report for Sheilagh Polk Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. (as to named Plaintiff Cat Brooks)
A-11 (entire document, bates numbered
PLAINTIFFS_011126-
PLAINTIFFS_011253)

1
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 9 of 51

Ex. No. Portion(s) to Seal Basis to Seal

Fahringer Risk Inform Report for Sheilagh Polk Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. (as to named Plaintiff Cat Brooks)
A-12 (entire document, bates numbered
PLAINTIFFS_011275 -
PLAINTIFFS_011312)

Appold Internal employee handbook on the public Compiles and reveals confidential,
Decl. Ex. records credentialing process. nonpublic information about Thomson
B-1 Reuters’ training methods, and the
(entire document, bates numbered TR- processes that Thomson Reuters puts in
BROOKS301621 - TR-BROOKS301636) place to prevent misuse and ensure security
of CLEAR, which would be less effective in
preventing misuse if not kept secret, and
confidential information regarding specific
business strategies.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶¶ 6, 7.

Appold Internal spreadsheet of CLEAR customers The Court has already found good cause
Decl. Ex. and compelling reasons to seal a non-
B-2 (entire document, bates numbered TR- filtered version of this customer list, which
BROOKS426763) was attached as Ex. 9 to the Mura
Declaration, Dkt. 124-12, see Order to Seal,
Dkt. 147 at 7.

Appold CLEAR search log for Cat Brooks Compiles and reveals confidential, non-
Decl. Ex. public information regarding the identity of
B-4 (entire document, bates numbered TR- CLEAR customers; specific queries
BROOKS425993) conducted by those customers in CLEAR;
identifying information about third parties
not subject to this litigation as well as
named Plaintiff Cat Brooks; and
confidential information regarding CLEAR
technical processes, such as the names of
internal databases.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶¶ 3, 8. It
would also unnecessarily disclose
information about third parties not subject
to this litigation.

2
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 10 of 51

Ex. No. Portion(s) to Seal Basis to Seal

Appold CLEAR search log for Rasheed Shabazz Same as row above
Decl. Ex. (as to Plaintiff Rasheed Shabazz)
B-5 (entire document, bates numbered TR-
BROOKS425994)

Appold Account Validation and Certification (AVC) Prospective customer intake form of limited
Decl. Ex. Form Westlaw and CLEAR (Corporate) distribution which reveals details that are
B-6 not widely known about the processes that
(entire document, bates numbered TR- Thomson Reuters has in place to prevent
BROOKS003092 - TR-BROOKS003095) misuse and ensure security of CLEAR, and
which would be less effective in preventing
misuse if made publicly available.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶¶ 3, 6.

Appold Account Validation and Certification (AVC) Same as row above
Decl. Ex. Form Westlaw and CLEAR (Government)
B-7
(entire document, bates numbered TR-
BROOKS013911 - TR-BROOKS013913)

Appold Internal Public Records Compliance 2020 Compiles and reveals confidential, non-
Decl. Ex. Review public information regarding the processes
B-8 that Thomson Reuters puts in place to
(entire document, bates numbered TR- prevent misuse and ensure security of
BROOKS305113 - TR-BROOKS305117) CLEAR, which would be less effective in
preventing misuse if not kept secret, as well
as confidential information regarding
specific business strategies and financial
information.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶¶ 3, 6.

Svonkin CLEAR Case Study: CLEAR Helps CLEAR case study of limited distribution,
Decl. Ex. Investigators Close Cases on Missing which reveals the identity of a CLEAR
C-2 Children customer, which in most cases are not
publicly known, and non-public details
(entire document, bates numbered TR- about how that customer used CLEAR in
BROOKS054555 - TR-BROOKS054556) two different cases.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶¶ 2, 6. It

3
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 11 of 51

Ex. No. Portion(s) to Seal Basis to Seal

would also unnecessarily disclose
information about a third party not subject
to this litigation.

4
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 12 of 51

EXHIBIT 2
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 13 of 51

EXHIBIT 2
(re Defendant Thomson Reuters’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification -
Partially Sealed with Redactions)

Cite Portion(s) to Seal Basis to Seal

Opp. Brief FN 4 (after “E.g.,” to the end of footnote Reveals information about the total number of
(2:27-28) 4) CLEAR customers, which is not publicly
known.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2.

Opp. Brief FN 5 (after “E.g.,” to the end of footnote Same as row above
(3:19-20) 5)

Opp. Brief FN 6 (after “E.g.,” to the end of footnote Same as rows above
(3:20) 6)

Opp. Brief FN 7 (after “E.g.,” to the end of footnote Same as rows above
(3:21) 7)

Opp. Brief FN 8 (entire footnote) Same as rows above
(3:22-23)

Opp. Brief FN 9 (after “The subscribers do not Reveals the name of a third party that is not a
(3:24) include (and have never included)” and CLEAR customer.
before “notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ Public disclosure of this information would
unsupported statement to the contrary.”) unnecessarily disclose the identity a third-party
completely unrelated to this litigation.

Opp. Brief After “Of these, only” and before Same as rows above
(4:18) “generated a report.”)

Opp. Brief After “customers” and before “but Reveals non-public details about how a
(4:20) those”) particular CLEAR customer (who is not
named, but who is described) used CLEAR.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2. It would
also unnecessarily disclose information about a
third party not subject to this litigation

1
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 14 of 51

Cite Portion(s) to Seal Basis to Seal

Opp. Brief FN 15 (beginning of footnote and before Reveals the identity of a CLEAR customer,
(4:25) “See Fahringer Decl., Ex. A-2 at 213:4- which in most cases are not publicly known,
214:16; Ex. A-3 at 239:11-240:12.”) and non-public details about how that customer
used CLEAR.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2. It would
also unnecessarily disclose information about a
third party not subject to this litigation.

Opp. Brief FN 16 (beginning of footnote and before Same as rows above
(4:26) “(on July 7, 2021),”)

Opp. Brief FN 16 (after “(on July 7, 2021),” and Same as rows above
(4:26) before “(on Nov. 21, 2017), and”)

Opp. Brief FN 16 (after “(on Nov. 21, 2017), and” Same as rows above
(4:26) and before “(on Dec. 10, 2017).”)

Opp. Brief FN 16 (after “(on Dec. 10, 2017).” and Same as rows above
(4:26) before “search probably did not relate
to”)

Opp. Brief FN 17 (beginning of footnote and before Same as rows above
(4:28) “on August 2, 2016.”)

2
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 15 of 51

EXHIBIT 3
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 16 of 51

EXHIBIT 3
(re Appold Declaration - Partially Sealed with Redactions)

Cite Portion(s) to Seal Basis to Seal

Appold Declaration page 5, ¶ 13 (after “As of Reveals non-public, confidential
Decl. (5:8) October 19, 2022, there were information regarding the number of
approximately” and before “active CLEAR customers during a specific period
CLEAR”) of time.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2

Appold Declaration page 5, ¶ 13 (after “While” and Reveals the name of a third party that is not
Decl. (5:11) before “once applied to become a”) a CLEAR customer.
Public disclosure of this information would
unnecessarily disclose the identity a third-
party completely unrelated to this litigation.

1
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 17 of 51

EXHIBIT 4
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 18 of 51

EXHIBIT 4
(re Svonkin Declaration - Partially Sealed with Redactions)

Cite Portion(s) to Seal Basis to Seal

Svonkin Declaration page 5, ¶ 14 section b (after Reveals the identity of a CLEAR customer,
Decl. “By pension funds, such as the” and before which in most cases are not publicly known,
(5:14) “to avoid pension fraud,”) and non-public details about how that
customer used CLEAR.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2. It
would also unnecessarily disclose
information about a third party not subject
to this litigation.

Svonkin Declaration page 5, ¶ 14 section c (after “By Same as row above
Decl. state agencies, such as” and before “to
(5:17-18) identify owners of properties in the course
of investigating the need”)

Svonkin Declaration page 5, ¶ 14 section d (after Same as rows above
Decl. “By the” and before “Courts to issue
(5:20) collection notices”)

Svonkin Declaration page 5, ¶ 14 section e (after “By Same as rows above
Decl. public defenders’ offices throughout
(5:23-24) California (including” and before “County)
to defend the accused.”)

Svonkin Declaration page 5, ¶ 14 section f (after “By Same as rows above
Decl. the” and before “School District to verify
(5:25) student residency for”)

1
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 19 of 51

EXHIBIT 5
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 20 of 51

EXHIBIT 5
(re Bambauer Rebuttal Expert Report - Partially Sealed with Redactions)

Ex. No. Portion(s) to Seal Basis to Seal

Fahringer Report page 22, ¶ 3 (after “Indeed, as I Reveals the identity of a CLEAR customer,
Decl. Ex. describe in more detail below, named which in most cases are not publicly known,
A-1 Plaintiff Cat Brooks may have benefited in as well as nonpublic, confidential
exactly this way given that the” through end information related to CLEAR searches
of paragraph 3) performed on named Plaintiff Cat Brooks.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2. It
would also unnecessarily disclose
information about third parties not subject
to this litigation.

Fahringer Report page 27, ¶ 3 (after “For example, in Same as row above
Decl. Ex. Cat Brooks’ case, Brooks was not able to
A-1 identify any adverse impact on her from any
search conducted using CLEAR [73]”
through end of paragraph 3)

Fahringer Report page 27, ¶ 4 (after “For example,” Reveals nonpublic, confidential information
Decl. Ex. and before “If either document—”) regarding specific records related to a
A-1 CLEAR report on named Plaintiff Cat
Brooks, including information about
specific records provided by an identified
third party who licenses data for access
through CLEAR.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶¶ 5, 6. It
would also unnecessarily disclose
information about named Plaintiff Cat
Brooks and a third party not subject to this
litigation.

1
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 21 of 51

Ex. No. Portion(s) to Seal Basis to Seal

Fahringer Report page 27, ¶ 4 (after “If either Reveals non-public, confidential
Decl. Ex. document—” and before “—were the only information regarding specific records
A-1 source used by a decision-maker,”) related to a CLEAR report on named
Plaintiff Cat Brooks, including information
about specific records provided by an
identified third party who licenses data for
access through CLEAR.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶¶ 5, 6. It
would also unnecessarily disclose
information about a third party not subject
to this litigation.

Fahringer Report page 27, ¶ 4 (after “A CLEAR client, Same as row above
Decl. Ex. however, would see” and before “(TR-
A-1 BROOKS008262-63).”)

Fahringer Report page 27, ¶ 4 (after “With the whole Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. set of records on CLEAR, the decision-
A-1 maker would ignore” and before “and have
more confidence that,”)

Fahringer Report page 27, ¶ 4 (after “e.g., Cat Brooks Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. is not trying to impersonate a much older or
A-1 differently named individual.” and before
“create a more accurate picture than either
one in isolation,”)

Fahringer Report page 28, ¶ 1 (after “They may Reveals the name of a third party not
Decl. Ex. discover a rape conviction of somebody subject to this litigation who was convicted
A-1 named” and before “and become concerned of rape. Although this information is
that they cannot rule out,”) already publicly available through a Google
search, including the redacted information
in this filing could unnecessarily surface
information about a third party not subject
to this litigation.

Fahringer Report page 28, ¶ 1 (after “Users of Same as the row above
Decl. Ex. CLEAR, on the other hand, will not even
A-1 encounter the records for” and before (TR-
BROOKS008719-8740; Video, TR-
BROOKS010275).”)

2
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 22 of 51

Ex. No. Portion(s) to Seal Basis to Seal

Fahringer Report page 29, ¶ 4 (after “Thomson Reuters Reveals non-public, confidential
Decl. Ex. declined over” and before “in potential information about the value of potential
A-1 contracts during the year”) contracts that Thomson Reuters declined
due to credentialing and compliance
procedures.

Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2.

Fahringer Report page 29, ¶ 4 (after “This represents a Reveals non-public, confidential
Decl. Ex. significant portion of potential new information about proportion of potential
A-1 business—over” and before “of potential contracts that Thomson Reuters declined
contracts—that were declined”) due to credentialing and compliance
procedures.

Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2.

Fahringer Report page 30, ¶ 5 (after “(Fox Dep. at Reveals non-public, confidential
Decl. Ex. 176). The” and before “and some states’ information regarding a specific third party
A-1 Departments of Motor Vehicles have who licenses data for access through
conducted such audits.”) CLEAR.

Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 6.

3
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 23 of 51

EXHIBIT 6
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 24 of 51

EXHIBIT 6
(re Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report - Partially Sealed with Redactions)

Ex. No. Portion(s) to Seal Basis to Seal

Fahringer Report page 85, FN 286 (after “TR- Reveals the name of an employee of a
Decl. Ex. BROOKS046643” and before “who is a CLEAR customer, who submitted to
A-14 federal criminal investigator”) Thomson Reuters an explanation about how
they used CLEAR.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2. It
would also unnecessarily disclose
information about a third party not subject
to this litigation.

Fahringer Report page 85, FN 286 (after “By only Same as row above
Decl. Ex. having an image with latitude and longitude
A-14 coordinates,” and before “and her
colleagues used CLEAR”)

Fahringer Report page 85, FN 286 (after “the subject Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. and other family members.” and before
A-14 “also used CLEAR to locate the minor.”)

Fahringer Report page 85, FN 287 (after “Using Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. CLEAR’s associate analytics” and before
A-14 “identified that the fugitive’s brother had a
new address”)

Fahringer Report page 85, FN 287 (after “With this Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. information,” and before “and his team was
A-14 able to locate the fugitive”)

Fahringer Report page 86, ¶ 137 (after “For example, Reveals the identity of a CLEAR customer,
Decl. Ex. child and family services organizations which in most cases are not publicly known,
A-14 such as the” and before “have used and non-public details about how that
information from the platform”) customer used CLEAR.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2. It
would also unnecessarily disclose
information about a third party not subject
to this litigation.

1
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 25 of 51

Ex. No. Portion(s) to Seal Basis to Seal

Fahringer Report page 86, ¶ 137 (after “Similarly, Same as row above
Decl. Ex. the” and before “has used CLEAR to find
A-14 the most current address of children”)

Fahringer Report page 86, FN 291 (after “As the Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. Criminal Investigator for the” and before “I
A-14 was asked to review and work on a March
25, 1969 Homicide cold case.”)

Fahringer Report page 88, ¶ 141 (after “Knowing Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. only his friend’s last name and hometown,
A-14 the military member contacted the” and
before “which then used CLEAR to locate
the friend.”)

Fahringer Report page 88, ¶ 141 (after “According to Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. the” and before “agent who handled this
A-14 case,”)

Fahringer Report page 91, FN 312 (entire footnote) Compiles and reveals non-public,
Decl. Ex. confidential information about compliance
A-14 procedures, including information about the
number and types of requests,
investigations, and reviews handled by the
credentialing team over a specific period of
time.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 3.

Fahringer Report page 92, ¶ 149 (after “the audit team Reveals non-public, confidential
Decl. Ex. declined over” and before “in contract information about the value of potential
A-14 revenues based on the results of their contracts that Thomson Reuters declined
proactive reviews.”) due to credentialing and compliance
procedures.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2.

Fahringer Report page 92, FN 320 (after “Though we Same as row above
Decl. Ex. have declined” and before “in contracts we
A-14 believe that is a small price to pay”)

2
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 26 of 51

Ex. No. Portion(s) to Seal Basis to Seal

Fahringer Report page 93, ¶ 151 (after “Those data Reveals non-public, confidential
Decl. Ex. fields associated with” and before “are information regarding Thomson Reuters
A-14 encrypted by Thomson Reuters with its security process, which if disclosed would
own key.”) make such processes less effective.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 3.

Fahringer Report page 99, ¶ 165 (after “these net Reveals non-public information about
Decl. Ex. profits dating back to December 2017, Plaintiffs’ expert’s inaccurate and
A-14 which shows total net profits of misleading estimation of CLEAR “net
approximately” and before “million as of profits” attributable to California.
the end of 2021.”) Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 10.

Fahringer Report page 100, ¶ 167 (after “Instead, Mr. Same as row above
Decl. Ex. Lloyd arrives at a “total net profits” figure
A-14 of” and before “million”)

Fahringer Report page 101, ¶ 167 continued from Reveals non-public information about
Decl. Ex. previous page (top of page before “of U.S. Plaintiffs’ expert’s inaccurate and
A-14 CLEAR revenues”) misleading estimation of CLEAR revenues
attributable to California.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 10.

Fahringer Report page 101, ¶ 167 continued from Reveals non-public information about
Decl. Ex. previous page (after “and that” and before Plaintiffs’ expert’s inaccurate and
A-14 “of CLEAR searches relate to misleading estimation of CLEAR searches
individuals;”) related to individuals.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 10.

Fahringer Report page 101, ¶ 167 continued from Reveals non-public information about
Decl. Ex. previous page (after “using” and before Plaintiffs’ expert’s inaccurate and
A-14 “(ostensibly based on various discovery misleading estimation of the costs of
documents)”) CLEAR.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 10.

3
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 27 of 51

Ex. No. Portion(s) to Seal Basis to Seal

Fahringer Report page 101, ¶ 167 continued from Reveals non-public information about
Decl. Ex. previous page (after “by the supposed” and Plaintiffs’ expert’s inaccurate and
A-14 before “profit margin”) misleading estimation of CLEAR profits.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 10.

Fahringer Report page 101, ¶ 167 continued from Reveals non-public information about
Decl. Ex. previous page (after “100% minus the”) Plaintiffs’ expert’s inaccurate and
A-14 and before ““marginal cost” estimate”) misleading estimation of the costs of
CLEAR.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 10.

Fahringer Report page 101, ¶ 167 continued from Reveals non-public information about
Decl. Ex. previous page (after “which adds up to”) Plaintiffs’ expert’s inaccurate and
A-14 and before “million.”) misleading estimation of CLEAR “net
profits” attributable to California.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 10.

Fahringer Report page 154, Exhibit D Table: re: Reveals the identity of a CLEAR customer,
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS055871 within which in most cases are not publicly known,
A-14 cell under column titled: CLEAR Customer and non-public details about how that
all data/information (after “See, e.g.,” to customer used CLEAR.
end of cell) Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2. It
would also unnecessarily disclose
information about a third party not subject
to this litigation.

Fahringer Report page 155, Exhibit D Table: re: Same as row above
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS041734 within
A-14 cell under column titled: CLEAR Customer
(all data/information)

Fahringer Report page 155, Exhibit D Table: re: Reveals the name of a third-party not
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS041734 within subject to this litigation related to a specific
A-14 cell under column titled: customer’s use of CLEAR.
Description/Outcome (after Public disclosure would harm Thomson
“Unfortunately,” and before “was found Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2. It

4
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 28 of 51

Ex. No. Portion(s) to Seal Basis to Seal

deceased in her SUV after I received a tip would also unnecessarily disclose
at my office.”) information about a third party not subject
to this litigation.

Fahringer Report page 155, Exhibit D Table: re: Same as row above
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS041734 within
A-14 cell under column titled:
Description/Outcome (after “At this time
we do not know how” and before “died as it
is now a police investigation.”)

Fahringer Report page 155, Exhibit D Table: re: Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS041734 within
A-14 cell under column titled:
Description/Outcome (after “those people
that I called knew that we were actively
looking for” and before “and these calls
may have assisted in locating her.”)

Fahringer Report page 155, Exhibit D Table: re: Reveals the identity of a CLEAR customer,
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS044782 within which in most cases are not publicly known,
A-14 cell under column titled: CLEAR Customer and non-public details about how that
(all data/information) customer used CLEAR.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2. It
would also unnecessarily disclose
information about a third party not subject
to this litigation.

Fahringer Report page 156, Exhibit D Table: re: Same as row above
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS046630 within
A-14 cell under column titled: CLEAR Customer
(all data/information)

Fahringer Report page 156, Exhibit D Table: re: Reveals the name of an employee of a
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS046630 within specific CLEAR customer, and non-public
A-14 cell under column titled: Use Case (after details about how that customer used
“Skip tracing” and before “was given the CLEAR.
task to locate a truck that belonged to the Public disclosure would harm Thomson
company she worked for.”) Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2. It
would also unnecessarily disclose

5
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 29 of 51

Ex. No. Portion(s) to Seal Basis to Seal

information about a third party not subject
to this litigation.

Fahringer Report page 156, Exhibit D Table: re: Same as row above
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS046630 within
A-14 cell under column titled:
Description/Outcome (after “Later,” and
before “uncovered the man was working at
a tax return and credit repair business”)

Fahringer Report page 156, Exhibit D Table: re: Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS046630 within
A-14 cell under column titled:
Description/Outcome (after “These were all
direct violations of this federal
supervision.” and before “contacted his
probation officer”)

Fahringer Report page 157, Exhibit D Table: re: Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS046630 continued
A-14 from previous page within cell under
column titled: Use Case (after “With
further research,” and before “found that
the individual transferred”)

Fahringer Report page 157, Exhibit D Table: re: Reveals the identity of a CLEAR customer,
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS046632 within which in most cases are not publicly known,
A-14 cell under column titled: CLEAR Customer and non-public details about how that
(all data/information) customer used CLEAR.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2. It
would also unnecessarily disclose
information about a third party not subject
to this litigation.

Fahringer Report page 158, Exhibit D Table: re: Same as row above
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS046634 within
A-14 cell under column titled: CLEAR Customer
(all data/information)

6
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 30 of 51

Ex. No. Portion(s) to Seal Basis to Seal

Fahringer Report page 158, Exhibit D Table: re: Reveals the name of an employee of a
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS046634 within specific CLEAR customer, and non-public
A-14 cell under column titled: Use Case (after details about how that customer used
“Skip tracing” and before “was suspicious CLEAR.
about a client's payment of minimal Public disclosure would harm Thomson
amounts and income reported from rental Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2. It
properties.”) would also unnecessarily disclose
information about a third party not subject
to this litigation.

Fahringer Report page 158, Exhibit D Table: re: Same as row above
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS046634 within
A-14 cell under column titled: Use Case (after
“Year after year” and before “and his
colleagues were unable to determine why
the client was receiving rental income
without actually owning a property”)

Fahringer Report page 158, Exhibit D Table: re: Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS046634 within
A-14 cell under column titled: Use Case (after
“By using CLEAR,” and before “was able
to run a report that revealed the client had
previously owned these properties”)

Fahringer Report page 158, Exhibit D Table: re: Reveals the identity of a CLEAR customer,
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS046636 within which in most cases are not publicly known,
A-14 cell under column titled: CLEAR Customer and non-public details about how that
(all data/information) customer used CLEAR.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2. It
would also unnecessarily disclose
information about a third party not subject
to this litigation.

Fahringer Report page 159, Exhibit D Table: re: Same as row above
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS046639 within
A-14 cell under column titled: CLEAR Customer
(all data/information)

7
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 31 of 51

Ex. No. Portion(s) to Seal Basis to Seal

Fahringer Report page 159, Exhibit D Table: re: Reveals the name of an employee of a
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS046639 within specific CLEAR customer, and non-public
A-14 cell under column titled: Use Case (after details about how that customer used
“Skip tracing” and before “is a criminal CLEAR.
defense investigator”) Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2. It
would also unnecessarily disclose
information about a third party not subject
to this litigation.

Fahringer Report page 159, Exhibit D Table re: Same as row above
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS046639 within
A-14 cell under column titled: Use Case (after “a
wrongfully convicted man.” and before
“used the reverse phone look-up search to
locate”)

Fahringer Report page 159, Exhibit D Table: re: Reveals the identity of a CLEAR customer,
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS046640 within which in most cases are not publicly known,
A-14 cell under column titled: CLEAR Customer and non-public details about how that
(all data/information) customer used CLEAR.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2. It
would also unnecessarily disclose
information about a third party not subject
to this litigation.

Fahringer Report page 159, Exhibit D Table: re: Same as row above
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS046641 within
A-14 cell under column titled: CLEAR Customer
(all data/information)

Fahringer Report page 159, Exhibit D Table: re: Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS046641 within
A-14 cell under column titled: Use Case (after
“Law enforcement” and before “were
alerted to a missing person”)

Fahringer Report page 159, Exhibit D Table: re: Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS046642 within
A-14

8
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 32 of 51

Ex. No. Portion(s) to Seal Basis to Seal

cell under column titled: CLEAR Customer
(all data/information)

Fahringer Report page 159, Exhibit D Table: re: Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS046642 within
A-14 cell under column titled: Use Case (after
“The” and before “was faced with a live
explosive”)

Fahringer Report page 160, Exhibit D Table: re: Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS046643 within
A-14 cell under column titled: CLEAR Customer
(all data/information)

Fahringer Report page 160, Exhibit D Table: re: Reveals the identity of a CLEAR customer,
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS046643 within which in most cases are not publicly known,
A-14 cell under column titled: Use Case (after the name of an employee of a specific
“Child and family services” and before CLEAR customer, and non-public details
“who is a federal criminal investigator”) about how that customer used CLEAR.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2. It
would also unnecessarily disclose
information about a third party not subject
to this litigation.

Fahringer Report page 160, Exhibit D Table: re: Same as row above
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS046643 within
A-14 cell under column titled: Use Case (after
“By only having an image with latitude and
longitude coordinates,” and before “and her
colleagues used CLEAR to geo-locate”)

Fahringer Report page 160, Exhibit D Table: re: Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS046643 within
A-14 cell under column titled: Use Case (after
“to identify the subject and other family
members.” and before “also used CLEAR
to locate the minor.”)

9
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 33 of 51

Ex. No. Portion(s) to Seal Basis to Seal

(all data/information) and non-public details about how that
customer used CLEAR.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2. It
would also unnecessarily disclose
information about a third party not subject
to this litigation.

Fahringer Report page 160, Exhibit D Table: re: Reveals the name of an employee of a
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS046645 within specific CLEAR customer, and non-public
A-14 cell under column titled: Use Case (after details about how that customer used
“Tax fraud prevention” and before “works CLEAR.
in the") Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2. It
would also unnecessarily disclose
information about a third party not subject
to this litigation.

Fahringer Report page 160, Exhibit D Table: re: Reveals the identity of a CLEAR customer,
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS046645 within which in most cases are not publicly known,
A-14 cell under column titled: Use Case (after the name of an employee of a specific
“works in the” and before “She was looking CLEAR customer, and non-public details
for a man who was marked deceased") about how that customer used CLEAR.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2. It
would also unnecessarily disclose
information about a third party not subject
to this litigation.

Fahringer Report page 160, Exhibit D Table: re: Same as row above
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS046647 within
A-14 cell under column titled: CLEAR Customer
(all data/information)

Fahringer Report page 160, Exhibit D Table: re: Reveals the identity of a CLEAR customer,
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS046647 within which in most cases are not publicly known,
A-14 cell under column titled: Use Case (after the name of an employee of a specific
“Child and family services” and before CLEAR customer, and non-public details
“was assigned to an investigation involving about how that customer used CLEAR.
an abduction of an 11 month old child.”) Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2. It

10
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 34 of 51

Ex. No. Portion(s) to Seal Basis to Seal

would also unnecessarily disclose
information about a third party not subject
to this litigation.

Fahringer Report page 161, Exhibit D Table: re: Reveals the identity of a CLEAR customer,
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS046649 within which in most cases are not publicly known,
A-14 cell under column titled: CLEAR Customer and non-public details about how that
(all data/information) customer used CLEAR.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2. It
would also unnecessarily disclose
information about a third party not subject
to this litigation.

Fahringer Report page 161, Exhibit D Table: re: Same as row above
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS046652 within
A-14 cell under column titled: CLEAR Customer
(all data/information)

Fahringer Report page 161, Exhibit D Table: re: Reveals the name of an employee of a
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS046652 within specific CLEAR customer, and non-public
A-14 cell under column titled: details about how that customer used
Description/Outcome (after “Using CLEAR.
CLEAR's associate analytics” and before
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
“identified that the fugitive's brother”) Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2. It
would also unnecessarily disclose
information about a third party not subject
to this litigation.

Fahringer Report page 161, Exhibit D Table: re: Same as row above
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS046652 within
A-14 cell under column titled:
Description/Outcome (after “With this
information,” and before “and his team was
able to locate the fugitive”)

Fahringer Report page 162, Exhibit D Table: re: Reveals the identity of a CLEAR customer,
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS046654 within which in most cases are not publicly known,
A-14 cell under column titled: CLEAR Customer and non-public details about how that
(all data/information) customer used CLEAR.

11
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 35 of 51

Ex. No. Portion(s) to Seal Basis to Seal

Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2. It
would also unnecessarily disclose
information about a third party not subject
to this litigation.

Fahringer Report page 162, Exhibit D Table: re: Same as row above
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS046654 within
A-14 cell under column titled: Use Case (after
“The” and before “needed to track down
veterans who were owed money”)

Fahringer Report page 162, Exhibit D Table: re: Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS046655 within
A-14 cell under column titled: CLEAR Customer
(all data/information)

Fahringer Report page 163, Exhibit D Table: re: Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS049564 within
A-14 cell under column titled: CLEAR Customer
(all data/information)

Fahringer Report page 163, Exhibit D Table: re: Reveals the name of an employee of a
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS049564 within specific CLEAR customer, and non-public
A-14 cell under column titled: Use Case (after details about how that customer used
“Child and family services” and before “is CLEAR.
a detective with the”) Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2. It
would also unnecessarily disclose
information about a third party not subject
to this litigation.

Fahringer Report page 163, Exhibit D Table: re: Reveals the identity of a CLEAR customer,
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS049564 within which in most cases are not publicly known,
A-14 cell under column titled: Use Case (after “is and non-public details about how that
a detective with the” and before “and he is customer used CLEAR.
responsible for cases involving sexually Public disclosure would harm Thomson
abused children.”) Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2. It
would also unnecessarily disclose
information about a third party not subject
to this litigation.

12
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 36 of 51

Ex. No. Portion(s) to Seal Basis to Seal

Fahringer Report page 163, Exhibit D Table: re: Reveals the name of an employee of a
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS049564 within specific CLEAR customer, and non-public
A-14 cell under column titled: details about how that customer used
Description/Outcome (after “With just a CLEAR.
possible first and last name, and the town Public disclosure would harm Thomson
the girls lived in,” and before “turned to Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2. It
CLEAR to help find their abuser.”) would also unnecessarily disclose
information about a third party not subject
to this litigation.

Fahringer Report page 163, Exhibit D Table: re: Same as row above
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS049564 within
A-14 cell under column titled:
Description/Outcome (after “turned to
CLEAR to help find their abuser.” and
before “was able to find three names and
addresses that could be the potential
suspect.”)

Fahringer Report page 163, Exhibit D Table: re: Reveals the identity of a CLEAR customer,
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS049566 within which in most cases are not publicly known,
A-14 cell under column titled: CLEAR Customer and non-public details about how that
(all data/information) customer used CLEAR.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2. It
would also unnecessarily disclose
information about a third party not subject
to this litigation.

Fahringer Report page 163, Exhibit D Table: re: Same as row above
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS049886 within
A-14 cell under column titled: CLEAR Customer
(all data/information)

Fahringer Report page 163, Exhibit D Table: re: Reveals the name of an employee of a
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS049886 within specific CLEAR customer, and non-public
A-14 cell under column titled: details about how that customer used
Description/Outcome (beginning of cell CLEAR.
before “works for the”) Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2. It
would also unnecessarily disclose

13
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 37 of 51

Ex. No. Portion(s) to Seal Basis to Seal

information about a third party not subject
to this litigation.

Fahringer Report page 163, Exhibit D Table: re: Reveals the identity of a CLEAR customer,
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS049886 within which in most cases are not publicly known,
A-14 cell under column titled: and non-public details about how that
Description/Outcome (after “works for the” customer used CLEAR.
and before “where he leverages CLEAR”) Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2. It
would also unnecessarily disclose
information about a third party not subject
to this litigation.

Fahringer Report page 163, Exhibit D Table: re: Same as row above
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS049889 within
A-14 cell under column titled: CLEAR Customer
(all data/information)

Fahringer Report page 163, Exhibit D Table: re: Reveals the name of an employee of a
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS049889 within specific CLEAR customer, and non-public
A-14 cell under column titled: details about how that customer used
Description/Outcome (after “CLEAR CLEAR.
helps” and before “and her team locate Public disclosure would harm Thomson
those caretakers”) Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2. It
would also unnecessarily disclose
information about a third party not subject
to this litigation.

Fahringer Report page 164, Exhibit D Table: re: Reveals the identity of a CLEAR customer,
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS049907 within which in most cases are not publicly known,
A-14 cell under column titled: CLEAR Customer and non-public details about how that
(all data/information) customer used CLEAR.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2. It
would also unnecessarily disclose
information about a third party not subject
to this litigation.

Fahringer Report page 164, Exhibit D Table: re: Reveals the name of an employee of a
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS049907 within specific CLEAR customer, and non-public
A-14

14
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 38 of 51

Ex. No. Portion(s) to Seal Basis to Seal

cell under column titled: Use Case (after details about how that customer used
“Skip tracing” and before “works for the”) CLEAR.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2. It
would also unnecessarily disclose
information about a third party not subject
to this litigation.

Fahringer Report page 164, Exhibit D Table: re: Reveals the identity of a CLEAR customer,
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS049907 within which in most cases are not publicly known,
A-14 cell under column titled: Use Case (after and non-public details about how that
“works for the” and before “and utilizes customer used CLEAR.
CLEAR to find missing people.”) Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2. It
would also unnecessarily disclose
information about a third party not subject
to this litigation.

Fahringer Report page 164, Exhibit D Table: re: Same as row above
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS049907 within
A-14 cell under column titled:
Description/Outcome (after “During the
holiday season, the” and before “receives
many inquiries about missing individuals.”)

Fahringer Report page 164, Exhibit D Table: re: Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS060413 within
A-14 cell under column titled: CLEAR Customer
(all data/information)

Fahringer Report page 165, Exhibit D Table: re: Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS060414 within
A-14 cell under column titled: CLEAR Customer
(all data/information)

Fahringer Report page 165, Exhibit D Table: re: Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS060416 within
A-14 cell under column titled: CLEAR Customer
(all data/information)

15
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 39 of 51

Ex. No. Portion(s) to Seal Basis to Seal

Fahringer Report page 165, Exhibit D Table: re: Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS060418 within
A-14 cell under column titled: CLEAR Customer
(all data/information)

Fahringer Report page 166, Exhibit D Table: re: Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS060426 within
A-14 cell under column titled: CLEAR Customer
(all data/information)

Fahringer Report page 166, Exhibit D Table: re: Reveals the name of an employee of a
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS060426 within specific CLEAR customer, and non-public
A-14 cell under column titled: details about how that customer used
Description/Outcome (after “Because of” CLEAR.
and before “the daughter was able to attend Public disclosure would harm Thomson
the funeral”) Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2. It
would also unnecessarily disclose
information about a third party not subject
to this litigation.

Fahringer Report page 166, Exhibit D Table: re: Reveals the identity of a CLEAR customer,
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS060428 within which in most cases are not publicly known,
A-14 cell under column titled: CLEAR Customer and non-public details about how that
(all data/information) customer used CLEAR.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2. It
would also unnecessarily disclose
information about a third party not subject
to this litigation.

Fahringer Report page 166, Exhibit D Table: re: Same as row above
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS060431 within
A-14 cell under column titled: CLEAR Customer
(all data/information)

Fahringer Report page 166, Exhibit D Table: re: Reveals the name of an employee of a
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS060431 within specific CLEAR customer, and non-public
A-14 cell under column titled: details about how that customer used
Description/Outcome (after “Because of the CLEAR.
information stored in the product,” and Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2. It

16
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 40 of 51

Ex. No. Portion(s) to Seal Basis to Seal

before “was able to get an indictment on would also unnecessarily disclose
this individual.”) information about a third party not subject
to this litigation.

Fahringer Report page 167, Exhibit D Table: re: Reveals the identity of a CLEAR customer,
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS061525 within which in most cases are not publicly known,
A-14 cell under column titled: CLEAR Customer and non-public details about how that
(all data/information) customer used CLEAR.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2. It
would also unnecessarily disclose
information about a third party not subject
to this litigation.

Fahringer Report page 167, Exhibit D Table: re: Same as row above
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS064293 within
A-14 cell under column titled: CLEAR Customer
(all data/information)

Fahringer Report page 167, Exhibit D Table: re: Reveals the name of an employee of a
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS064293 within specific CLEAR customer, and non-public
A-14 cell under column titled: Use Case (after details about how that customer used
“robbed from the buyer at semi-automatic CLEAR.
gun point.” and before “and her team had
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
descriptions of the robbers”) Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2. It
would also unnecessarily disclose
information about a third party not subject
to this litigation.

Fahringer Report page 168, Exhibit D Table: re: Reveals the identity of a CLEAR customer,
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS102900 within which in most cases are not publicly known,
A-14 cell under column titled: CLEAR Customer and non-public details about how that
(all data/information) customer used CLEAR.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2. It
would also unnecessarily disclose
information about a third party not subject
to this litigation.

17
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 41 of 51

Ex. No. Portion(s) to Seal Basis to Seal

Fahringer Report page 168, Exhibit D Table: re: Reveals the name of an employee of a
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS102900 within specific CLEAR customer, and non-public
A-14 cell under column titled: Use Case (after details about how that customer used
“Law enforcement” and before “conducted CLEAR.
a fraud investigation”) Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2. It
would also unnecessarily disclose
information about a third party not subject
to this litigation.

Fahringer Report page 168, Exhibit D Table: re: Same as row above
Decl. Ex. Document: TR-BROOKS102900 within
A-14 cell under column titled:
Description/Outcome (after “These
addresses led” and before “to identify two
suspects,”)

18
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 42 of 51

EXHIBIT 7
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 43 of 51

EXHIBIT 7
(re Kidder Rebuttal Expert Report - Partially Sealed with Redactions)

Ex. No. Portion(s) to Seal Basis to Seal

Fahringer Report page 2, Table of Contents (after Reveals non-public information about
Decl. Ex. “6.3.1.3 Mr. Lloyd’s” and before “Cost Plaintiffs’ expert’s inaccurate and
A-17 Estimate Does Not Include All misleading estimation of the costs of
Attributable Costs”) CLEAR.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 10.

Fahringer Report page 5, ¶ 13 (after “He attributes” Reveals non-public information about
Decl. Ex. and before “of Thomson Reuters’ “net Plaintiffs’ expert’s inaccurate and
A-17 profits” to California based on”) misleading estimation of CLEAR “net
profits” attributable to California.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 10.

Fahringer Report page 9, ¶ 21 (entire first sentence, Reveals non-public information about the
Decl. Ex. before cite to footnote 11) CLEAR customer base, specifically, the
A-17 proportion of revenue attributable to
government versus corporate, legal, and
other customers.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 2.

Fahringer Report page 9, ¶ 21 (entire Table after Reveals non-public information about the
Decl. Ex. “The top ten customers of CLEAR are revenue earned through CLEAR and the
A-17 shown in the table below along with their identities of CLEAR customers, which in
revenue from December 2020 to February most cases are not publicly known.
2021:” to the end of paragraph 21) Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶¶ 2, 8. It
would also unnecessarily disclose
information about third parties not subject
to this litigation.

Fahringer Report page 9, ¶ 22 (after “Between 2017 Reveals non-public information about the
Decl. Ex. and 2021, the percent of revenue from revenue earned through CLEAR,
A-17 subscription plans was between” and specifically, the proportion of revenue from
before “and”) subscription customers.

1
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 44 of 51

Ex. No. Portion(s) to Seal Basis to Seal

Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 8.

Fahringer Report page 9, ¶ 22 (after “and” and Same as row above
Decl. Ex. before “with the remaining revenue
A-17 described as “transactional.”)

Fahringer Report page 17, ¶ 49 (after “dating back to Reveals non-public information about
Decl. Ex. December 2017, which shows total net Plaintiffs’ expert’s inaccurate and
A-17 profits of approximately” and before “as misleading estimation of CLEAR specific
of the end of 2021.”) financial figures attributable to California.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 10.

Fahringer Report page 18, ¶ 51 (all data/information Same as row above
Decl. Ex. contained in the right-hand column of
A-17 Table 2: Lloyd Calculations)

Fahringer Report page 19, ¶ 52 (after “Mr. Lloyd’s Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. critical estimate that” and before “of
A-17 CLEAR’s U.S. revenue is attributable to
California is calculated as the average of
two other figures:”)

Fahringer Report page 19, ¶ 52 (after “California’s While based on publicly available
Decl. Ex. share of U.S. economic activity at” and information, in context, this information
A-17 before “California’s arrest rate at”) reveals non-public about Plaintiffs’ expert’s
inaccurate and misleading estimation of
CLEAR revenues attributable to California.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 10.

Fahringer Report page 19, ¶ 52 (after “California’s Same as row above
Decl. Ex. arrest rate at” to end of bullet point/
A-17 paragraph 52)

Fahringer Report page 21, ¶ 61 (after “In fact, the Reveals non-public information about
Decl. Ex. profit and loss statements provided by Thomson Reuters’ expenses for CLEAR.
A-17 Thomson Reuters indicate that royalties – Public disclosure would harm Thomson
which I understand relate to costs to
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 8.
acquire data – accounted for

2
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 45 of 51

Ex. No. Portion(s) to Seal Basis to Seal

approximately” and before “of the direct
expenses and”)

Fahringer Report page 21, ¶ 61 (after “of the direct Same as row above
Decl. Ex. expenses and” and before “of total
A-17 expenses for CLEAR in 2020 and 2021.”)

Fahringer Report page 21, ¶ 61 (after “Thus” and Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. before “to”)
A-17

Fahringer Report page 21, ¶ 61 (after “to” and before Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. “of Thomson Reuters’ expenses for
A-17 providing CLEAR are directed to
functionality other than acquiring the data
that includes information about California
residents.”)

Fahringer Report page 21, ¶ 65 (after “First, and Reveals non-public information about
Decl. Ex. most notably, his” and before “profit Plaintiffs’ expert’s inaccurate and
A-17 margin is neither incremental nor gross misleading estimation of CLEAR profits.
profits and is inflated.”) Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 10.

Fahringer Report page 21, ¶ 65 (after “Second, Mr. Reveals non-public information about
Decl. Ex. Lloyd’s allocation of” and before “of Plaintiffs’ expert’s inaccurate and
A-17 CLEAR’s revenue to California is misleading estimation of CLEAR revenue
unreliable and based on an ad hoc attributable to California.
methodology that contains a calculation Public disclosure would harm Thomson
error.”) Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 10.

Fahringer Report page 21, FN 53 (after “Royalties Reveals non-public information about
Decl. Ex. for 2020 and 2021 of” and before Thomson Reuters’ expenses for CLEAR.
A-17 “respectively out of”) Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 8.

Fahringer Report page 21, FN 53 (after “respectively Same as row above
Decl. Ex. out of” and before “direct expenses and”)
A-17

3
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 46 of 51

Ex. No. Portion(s) to Seal Basis to Seal

Fahringer Report page 21, FN 53 (after “direct Same as row above
Decl. Ex. expenses and” and before “of total
A-17 expenses.”)

Fahringer Report page 22, ¶ 65 continued from Reveals non-public information about
Decl. Ex. previous page (after “Lloyd’s estimate Plaintiffs’ expert’s inaccurate and
A-17 that” and before “of revenues are misleading estimation of CLEAR revenues
attributable to individuals as opposed to attributable to individuals.
businesses”) Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 10.

Fahringer Report page 22, ¶ 66 (after “Mr. Lloyd's Reveals non-public information about
Decl. Ex. estimated incremental profit margin of” Plaintiffs’ expert’s inaccurate and
A-17 and before “is flawed for at least three misleading estimation of CLEAR profits.
reasons.”) Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 10.

Fahringer Report page 28, Section header title Reveals non-public information about
Decl. Ex. between ¶¶ 81-82 (after “6.3.1.3 Mr. Plaintiffs’ expert’s inaccurate and
A-17 Lloyd’s” and before “Cost Estimate Does misleading estimation of the costs of
Not Include All Attributable Costs”) CLEAR.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 10.

Fahringer Report page 28, ¶ 82 (after “Mr. Lloyd Reveals non-public information about
Decl. Ex. justifies using a” and before “profit margin Plaintiffs’ expert’s inaccurate and
A-17 for CLEAR on the basis that the only misleading estimation of CLEAR profits.
incremental costs that should be Public disclosure would harm Thomson
considered are transactional royalty Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 10.
costs:”)

Fahringer Report page 29, ¶ 82 continued from Reveals non-public information about
Decl. Ex. previous page (after “Various documents Plaintiffs’ expert’s inaccurate and
A-17 produced in discovery reflect that misleading estimation of the costs of
Thomson Reuters’s transactional royalty CLEAR.
costs are consistently at or below” and Public disclosure would harm Thomson
before “of the corresponding revenues.”) Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 10.

4
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 47 of 51

Ex. No. Portion(s) to Seal Basis to Seal

Fahringer Report page 29, ¶ 82 continued from Same as row above
Decl. Ex. previous page (after “For that reason, my
A-17 calculations use the” and before “figure as
a reasonable estimate of the relevant
marginal costs”)

Fahringer Report page 29, ¶ 83 (after “As a starting Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. point, it is worth noting that Mr. Lloyd’s”
A-17 and before “figure is based on two
documents – an email exchange and an
Excel document”)

Fahringer Report page 29, ¶ 83 (after “neither of Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. which explain what the” and before
A-17 “actually represents or how it should be
used,”)

Fahringer Report page 29, ¶ 83 (after “Mr. Lloyd Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. understands the veracity of, or the basis
A-17 for the” and before “figures in these two
documents.”)

Fahringer Report page 29, ¶ 85 (after “Mr. Lloyd Reveals non-public information about
Decl. Ex. assumes that” and before “of Thomson Plaintiffs’ expert’s inaccurate and
A-17 Reuters’ revenue is tied to data on misleading estimation of the CLEAR
Californians.”) revenues attributable to California.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 10.

Fahringer Report page 29, ¶ 87 (after “Mr. Lloyd’s Reveals non-public information about
Decl. Ex. estimated profit margin of” and before Plaintiffs’ expert’s inaccurate and
A-17 “does not give credit to Thomson Reuters misleading estimation of CLEAR profits.
for any costs”) Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 10.

Fahringer Report page 30, ¶ 90 (after “For example, Reveals the identities of third-party
Decl. Ex. in his deposition, Mr. Lloyd was shown licensors of records accessible through
A-17 two agreements under which Thomson CLEAR, which in most cases are not
Reuters agreed to purchase data from the” publicly known.
to end of sentence, before cite to footnote Public disclosure would harm Thomson
76) Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 11. It

5
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 48 of 51

Ex. No. Portion(s) to Seal Basis to Seal

would also unnecessarily disclose
information about third parties not subject
to this litigation.

Fahringer Report page 30, FN 77 (after “My Reveals non-public information about
Decl. Ex. question is: Does your” and before “figure Plaintiffs’ expert’s inaccurate and
A-17 account for the cost savings of terminating misleading estimation of the costs of
a recurring data licensing agreement.”) CLEAR.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 10.

Fahringer Report page 31, ¶ 91 (after “In summary, Reveals non-public information about
Decl. Ex. Mr. Lloyd’s calculation of a” and before Plaintiffs’ expert’s inaccurate and
A-17 “profit margin on sales is the unreliable misleading estimation of CLEAR profits.
result of an ad hoc and unsound Public disclosure would harm Thomson
methodology.”) Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 10.

Fahringer Report page 32, ¶ 98 (after “I note that While based on publicly available
Decl. Ex. California also has a higher arrest rate” information, in context, this information
A-17 and before “than its share of the U.S. reveals confidential information about
population”) Plaintiffs’ expert’s inaccurate and
misleading estimation of CLEAR revenues
attributable to California.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 10.

Fahringer Report page 32, ¶ 98 (after “than its share Same as row above
Decl. Ex. of the U.S. population” to end of sentence,
A-17 before cite to footnote 84)

Fahringer Report page 33, ¶ 103 (after “Furthermore, Reveals non-public information about
Decl. Ex. Mr. Lloyd appears to have made a math Plaintiffs’ expert’s inaccurate and
A-17 error when calculating his” and before misleading estimation of the CLEAR
“figure.”) revenues attributable to California.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 10.

Fahringer Report page 33, ¶ 103 (after “Mr. Lloyd’s While based on publicly available
Decl. Ex. representation that the FBI arrest data information, in context, this information
A-17 indicates that California accounted for” reveals confidential information about

6
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 49 of 51

Ex. No. Portion(s) to Seal Basis to Seal

and before “of arrests in 2018 is not Plaintiffs’ expert’s inaccurate and
supported by the data.”) misleading estimation of CLEAR revenues
attributable to California.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 10.

Fahringer Report page 33, ¶ 103 (after “The data Same as row above
Decl. Ex. purportedly used by Mr. Lloyd reports”
A-17 and before “arrests in California out of a
total of”)

Fahringer Report page 33, ¶ 103 (after “arrests in Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. California out of a total of” and before
A-17 “arrests in the U.S. for a percentage of
arrests in California of”)

Fahringer Report page 33, ¶ 103 (after “arrests in the Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. U.S. for a percentage of arrests in
A-17 California of” to end of sentence, before
cite to footnote 87)

Fahringer Report page 33, ¶ 103 (after “Yet even Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. this” and before “overstates the true
A-17 percentage because the FBI arrest data
states that it is incomplete.”)

Fahringer Report page 33, ¶ 103 (after “Thus, the Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. actual percentage is somewhat lower than”
A-17 and before “and Mr. Lloyd’s”)

Fahringer Report page 33, ¶ 103 (after “and Mr. Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. Lloyd’s” and before “is unsupported and
A-17 inflated. ”)

Fahringer Report page 33, ¶ 103 (after “Furthermore, Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. if” and before “arrests are made each year
A-17 in the U.S., then that means that”)

Fahringer Report page 33, ¶ 103 (after “arrests are Same as row above
Decl. Ex. made each year in the U.S., then that
A-17 means that” and before “or”)

7
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 50 of 51

Ex. No. Portion(s) to Seal Basis to Seal

Fahringer Report page 33, ¶ 103 (after “or” and Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. before “of Americans were arrested in
A-17 2018.”)

Fahringer Report page 33, ¶ 103 (after Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. “Extrapolating the percent of revenues for
A-17 CLEAR attributable to Californians based
on the” and before “of the U.S. population
that was arrested is not representative and
is not reliable.”)

Fahringer Report page 34, ¶ 104 (after “Mr. Lloyd’s Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. selection of California’s share of GDP at”
A-17 and before “is based on 2021.”)

Fahringer Report page 34, ¶ 104 (after “In 2020, his Same as row above
Decl. Ex. own data shows that the share was” to end
A-17 of sentence, before cite to footnote 90)

Fahringer Report page 34, ¶ 106 (after “In summary, Reveals non-public information about
Decl. Ex. Mr. Lloyd’s allocation of” and before “of Plaintiffs’ expert’s inaccurate and
A-17 CLEAR revenues to the state of California misleading estimation of the CLEAR
is ad hoc,”) revenues attributable to California.
Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 10.

Fahringer Report page 34, ¶ 107 (after “He Reveals non-public information about
Decl. Ex. categorizes” and before “of revenue as Plaintiffs’ expert’s inaccurate and
A-17 being derived from searches related to misleading estimation of CLEAR revenues
individuals on the basis of an analysis of attributable to individuals.
search types”) Public disclosure would harm Thomson
Reuters. See Appold Sealing Dec. ¶ 10.

Fahringer Report page 34, ¶ 107 (after “the data Same as row above
Decl. Ex. indicates that approximately” and before
A-17 “of all CLEAR searches relate to
individuals.”)

8
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 150 Filed 01/26/23 Page 51 of 51

Ex. No. Portion(s) to Seal Basis to Seal

Fahringer Report page 34, ¶ 108 (after “– it is both. Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. The” and before “calculation relied upon
A-17 by Mr. Lloyd categorizes all searches
described as “Phone Search” as being a
search for a person.”)

Fahringer Report page 35, FN 96 (after “And is it Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. possible that you took your” and before
A-17 “figure from these Zeke calculations?”)

Fahringer Report page 35, FN 96 (after “It’s possible Same as rows above
Decl. Ex. that I directed him using the data to
A-17 perform some calculations, but yes, this
appears to be the source of the” to the end
of footnote 96)

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.cand.374304.150.0.pdf
Size: 331,061 bytes
SHA-256: e5f56eabb7042e8262dba5762fa3e071e53362ab13074456d9e2951fa4139ce1
Our copy: gov.uscourts.cand.374304.150.0.pdf
Original: PACER (login required)