Court filing
OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 167 Administrative Motion to Consider… — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 171)
Summary
Defendant Thomson Reuters' Statement in Response to Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Materials Should Be Sealed (Dkt. 167), Document 171, filed 03/10/23 in Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation, Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC (N.D. Cal.). It says Thomson Reuters seeks to seal only the items in Table 1, which concern the composition of the CLEAR customer base, CLEAR's technical processes, and figures on CLEAR searches and Plaintiffs' expert revenue estimates for Californians. The table gives each passage and a justification citing the Appold Declaration (Dkt. 150-3), and the statement asks that those materials remain under seal. Anna Mouw Thompson signed it on March 10, 2023.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 167 Administrative Motion to Consider… — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 171).”
Original at ecf.cand.uscourts.gov, No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC, Doc. 171. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/court-filings/full-docket-brooks-thomsonreuters-cand-374304/2023-03-10-gov-uscourts-cand-374304-171-0-gov-uscourts-cand-374304-171-0/
, SHA-256 0e6d03bcc8f21b1aad7c81514222d4ebb927685a0eb313eb51283bfdf4c9c54d.Full text
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 171 Filed 03/10/23 Page 1 of 6
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
Attorneys for Defendant Telephone: 214.965.7700
9 Thomson Reuters Corporation Facsimile: 214.965.7799
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
13
14
CAT BROOKS and RASHEED Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC
15
SHABAZZ, individually and on behalf of
16 all others similarly situated, DEFENDANT THOMSON REUTERS’
STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO
17 Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER
18 v. ANOTHER PARTY’S MATERIALS
SHOULD BE SEALED (DKT. 167)
19 THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION,
Judge: Hon. Edward M. Chen
20 Defendant.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC THOMSON REUTERS’ SEALING STATEMENT
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 171 Filed 03/10/23 Page 2 of 6
1 Thomson Reuters submits this Statement pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5 and
2 in response to Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Materials
3 Should be Sealed (“Motion”) (Dkt. 167). Through this Statement, Thomson Reuters seeks an
4 order to file under seal a subset of the materials originally designated in Plaintiffs’ Motion. This
5 Statement is supported by the previously filed Declaration of Kevin Appold in Support of
6 Thomson Reuters’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Confidential Information (Dkt.
7 150-3); the Stipulated Protective Order (Dkt. 70) entered in this action; and all pleadings and
8 papers on file.
9 LEGAL STANDARD
10 There is a “strong presumption in favor of access” to court records, but “access to judicial
11 records is not absolute.” Kamanaka v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th
12 Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Ins., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The legal
13 standard applicable to whether a document should be sealed depends on whether the document is
14 attached to a dispositive motion or a non-dispositive motion. See id. at 1179-80. Documents
15 attached to dispositive motions—like motions for summary judgment—may be sealed only when
16 the proponent establishes “compelling reasons” for doing so. Id. But documents attached to non-
17 dispositive motions that relate to the merits only tangentially—like motions to exclude expert
18 testimony consistent with Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)—
19 may be sealed upon a lesser showing of good cause. See, e.g., Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank,
20 Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (applying
21 compelling reasons standard to materials attached to summary judgment motion and “the lower
22 good cause standard for those documents related to the parties’ Daubert motions”). What reasons
23 are sufficient to justify sealing documents is generally “left to the sound discretion of the trial
24 court.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting
25 Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978)).
26 The lesser, good cause standard applies here because the information at issue relates to
27 Thomson Reuters’ Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Finance Scholars Group, Inc. (Dr. Terry
28
Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC -1- THOMSON REUTERS’ SEALING STATEMENT
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 171 Filed 03/10/23 Page 3 of 6
1 Lloyd) (Dkt. 157-2). But even if the higher, compelling reasons, standard applied, that standard is
2 also met for the same reasons discussed below and in the Appold Declaration (Dkt. 150-3).
3 ARGUMENT
4 Thomson Reuters does not seek to seal any information provisionally filed under seal by
5 Plaintiffs except for the information described in Table 1 below. The redactions proposed in
6 Table 1 are narrowly tailored to target non-public, sensitive information about the composition of
7 the CLEAR customer base; CLEAR’s technical processes; and figures related to CLEAR
8 searches and Plaintiffs’ expert’s estimates regarding revenue attributable to “Californians.”
9 As further explained in the justification table of Table 1 and in the previously filed Appold
10 Declaration (Dkt. 150-3) cited therein, sealing is justified because the redacted text reveals non-
11 public, sensitive “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing,” Nixon,
12 435 U.S. at 598.
13 Table 1
14
Cite Portion(s) to Seal Justification
15
Dkt. 167-3 Page 2, line 14 (between The redacted text reveals non-public
16 Pls. Opp. “there was a” and “between”) information about the proportion of
17 (2:14) government versus non-government CLEAR
customers, which is not publicly known, and
18 which could harm Thomson Reuters if
publicly disclosed, including because
19 competitors could “learn about how
Thomson Reuters has positioned CLEAR in
20
the marketplace.” See Dkt. 150-3 ¶ 2.
21 Dkt. 167-3 Page 2, line 17 (between “that Same as row above.
22 Pls. Opp. if” and “of CLEAR’s”)
(2:17)
23
Dkt. 167-3 Page 2, line 18 (between Same as rows above.
24 Pls. Opp. “and” and “were”)
(2:18)
25
Dkt. 167-3 Page 2, line 22 (between Same as rows above.
26 Pls. Opp. “were” and “then”)
(2:22)
27
28
Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC -2- THOMSON REUTERS’ SEALING STATEMENT
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 171 Filed 03/10/23 Page 4 of 6
1
Cite Portion(s) to Seal Justification
2
Dkt. 167-3 Page 8, line 10 (between Same as rows above.
3 Pls. Opp. “about” and “of CLEAR’s”)
(8:10)
4
Dkt. 167-3 Page 8, line 11 (between Same as rows above.
5
Pls. Opp. “and” and “are”)
6 (8:11)
7 Dkt. 167-3 Page 8, line 13 (between Same as rows above.
Pls. Opp. “them” and “to account”)
8 (8:13)
9 Dkt. 167-3 Page 8, line 22 (between “to The redacted text, alone or in combination
Pls. Opp. be” and “TR”) with other text, reveals detailed information
10 (8:22) about the proportion of CLEAR searches run
with a “state” and/or “California” input. This
11
information was cited in Plaintiffs’ brief to
12 justify their expert’s estimates of revenue
attributable to “Californians.” Public
13 disclosure of this information would harm
Thomson Reuters, including because it could
14 reveal “confidential information about
CLEAR finances and the makeup of CLEAR
15
data,” and because the estimates of
16 Plaintiffs’ experts “are inaccurate, or at least
grossly misleading, and could therefore
17 result in a misleading or inaccurate picture
of CLEAR and related business practices.”
18 Dkt. 150-3 ¶ 10.
19 Dkt. 167-3 Page 8, line 22.5 (between Same as row above.
Pls. Opp. “field” and “percent”)
20
(8:22.5)
21
Dkt. 167-5 Page 2, lines 9-11 (after The redacted text reveals “information
22 Mura Decl. “information requested by regarding the technical processes of CLEAR,
Ex. 2 Plaintiffs by determining the such as the function and names of internal
23 total number of” and before databases” and components thereof. Public
“and used to help facilitate disclosure of this information would harm
24 person searches run through”) Thomson Reuters, including “because
25 competitors may . . . be able to leverage
technical information for their own
26 competitive purposes.” Dkt. 150-3 ¶ 9.
27 Dkt. 167-5 Page 2, line 13 (after Same as row above.
Mura Decl. “determine the subset of
28 Ex. 2
Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC -3- THOMSON REUTERS’ SEALING STATEMENT
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 171 Filed 03/10/23 Page 5 of 6
1
Cite Portion(s) to Seal Justification
2
those” and before “a current or
3 past California address.”)
4 Dkt. 167-5 Page 2, line 16 (after “Note Same as rows above.
Mura Decl. that a single natural person
5
Ex. 2 may be associated with several
6 different” and before “such
that”)
7
Dkt. 167-5 Page 2, line 18 (after “The fact Same as rows above.
8 Mura Decl. that” and before “a current or
Ex. 2 past California address does
9 not”)
10 Dkt. 167-5 Page 2, line 26 through page Same as rows above.
Mura Decl. 3, line 1 (after “2.” entire
11
Ex. 2 sentence)
12
Dkt. 167-5 Page 3, line 2 (after “The Same as rows above.
13 Mura Decl. totals include” and before
Ex. 2 “which relate to persons who
14 are deceased and/or who”)
15 Dkt. 167-5 Page 3, lines 4-5 (after “As of Same as rows above.
Mura Decl. January 9, 2023,” and before
16 Ex. 2 “of these contained a current In addition, the redacted text reveals
or past California address.”) “confidential information about . . . the
17
makeup of CLEAR data,” Dkt. 150-3 ¶ 10,
18 and was relied upon in Plaintiffs’ brief to
justify their expert’s estimates of revenue
19 attributable to “Californians.” Public
disclosure would harm Thomson Reuters by
20 revealing “information regarding the
technical processes of CLEAR,” id. ¶ 9, and
21
“confidential information about . . . the
22 makeup of CLEAR data,” id. ¶ 10, and
because the estimates of Plaintiffs’ experts
23 “are inaccurate, or at least grossly
misleading, and could therefore result in a
24 misleading or inaccurate picture of CLEAR
25 and related business practices,” id.
26 Dkt. 167-5 Page 5, lines 4.5-8.5 (all eight The redacted text reveals detailed
Mura Decl. rows of data/information information about the proportion of CLEAR
27 Ex. 2 underneath the table column searches run with a “state” and/or
headers) “California” input. This information was
28 relied upon in Plaintiffs’ brief to justify their
Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC -4- THOMSON REUTERS’ SEALING STATEMENT
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 171 Filed 03/10/23 Page 6 of 6
1
Cite Portion(s) to Seal Justification
2
expert’s estimates of revenue attributable to
3 “Californians.” Public disclosure of this
information would harm Thomson Reuters,
4
including because it could reveal
5 “confidential information about CLEAR
finances and the makeup of CLEAR data,”
6 and because the estimates of Plaintiffs’
experts “are inaccurate, or at least grossly
7 misleading, and could therefore result in a
misleading or inaccurate picture of CLEAR
8
and related business practices.” Dkt. 150-3
9 ¶ 10.
10
CONCLUSION
11
For the reasons discussed above and in the previously filed declaration of Kevin Appold,
12
Thomson Reuters respectfully requests that the Court issue an order authorizing the materials
13
described in Table 1 above to remain under seal.
14
15
Dated: March 10, 2023 PERKINS COIE LLP
16
17
By: /s/ Anna Mouw Thompson
18 Anna Mouw Thompson
19 AnnaThompson@perkinscoie.com
20 Attorneys for Defendant Thomson Reuters
Corporation
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC -5- THOMSON REUTERS’ SEALING STATEMENT
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.cand.374304.171.0.pdf
- Size
- 152,231 bytes
- SHA-256
- 0e6d03bcc8f21b1aad7c81514222d4ebb927685a0eb313eb51283bfdf4c9c54d
- Original
- PACER (login required)