Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
15 APR 13 PM 3:47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
KING COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT CLERK
E-FILED
CASE NUMBER: 14-2-07669-0 SEA
Plaintiffs,
v.
ZILLOW, INC., a Washington corporation,
ERROL SAMUELSON, an individual,
CURT BEARDSLEY, an individual, and
DOES 1-20,
Defendants.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
I.
RELIEF REQUESTED
On April 6, 2015, Plaintiffs filed two motions to revise orders entered by the Special
Master appointed in this case to govern discovery: (1) a Motion to Revise Special Masters
Order Quashing Key Portions of the Document Subpoena to Trulia, and (2) a Motion to
Revise the Special Masters Order Re Subpoenas to Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan
(collectively Motions to Revise). These Motions to Revise center on very similar claims
and may well be resolved together by the Court. Plaintiffs filed motions to seal both Motions
to Revise and portions of the supporting declarations of Jack Lovejoy. Dkt. Nos. 524B &
524 D (filed April 6, 2015). Defendant Zillow, Inc. joined Plaintiffs motion to seal the
Motions to Revise and the supporting materials. Dkt. Nos. 533 & 534 (filed April 8, 2015).
Zillow now requests the Court also seal its opposition briefs (Opposition Briefs)
and supporting declaration of Kathleen M. OSullivan (collectively, Opposition Materials)
filed in response to the Motions to Revise. Each of these filings contains, discusses, or
references documents or information marked with a confidentiality designation by the parties
under the Second Amended Protective Order. By using this restrictive confidentiality
designation, the parties have asserted that the documents contain trade secrets or otherwise
highly sensitive and confidential material.
II.
FACTS
Plaintiff Move, Inc. (Move) and Zillow are direct competitors in the online real
estate market. In litigating this case, both parties have taken measures to protect their
respective trade secrets and other confidential business information from being disclosed to
the public in the course of discovery and motions practice. The Second Amended Protective
Order allows the parties to mark certain documents, in order of sensitivity: (i) Confidential,
(ii) Attorneys Eyes Only, (iii) Attorney Eyes Only M&A, and (iv) Outside Counsel Eyes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Only.
First and foremost, the Opposition Briefs discuss, analyze, and react to Plaintiffs
Motions to Revise, both of which Plaintiffs have moved to seal. Plaintiffs have designated
these materials as Outside Counsel Eyes Only under the Second Amended Protective
Order. Zillows Opposition Briefs also discuss and quote material that one of the parties has
designated under one of the protected designations in the Second Amended Protective Order,
including:
Details from Plaintiffs claims from the sealed portions of their Second Amended
Complaint;
Two emails from Defendant Samuelsons personal email account sent to Zillow
personnel during confidential negotiations for employment and personal
information regarding Mr. Samuelsons family and his financial matters. Both
emails have been designated by Samuelson as Confidential;
Discussion and quotation of parts of the transcript of proceedings held before the
Special Master in this case, which has been designated Outside Counsel Eyes
Only by the parties.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
each other.
III.
ISSUE
Whether the Court should seal Defendant Zillow, Inc.s Opposition Briefs and the
accompanying Declaration of Kathleen M. OSullivan and the exhibits attached thereto.
IV.
In support of this motion, Zillow relies upon GR 15, the Second Amended Protective
Order, the Opposition Materials, and the files and records in this matter.
V.
A.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
Firemans Fund Ins. Co., 137 Wn. App. 480, 486-87 (2007), reversed in part on other
grounds by 161 Wn.2d 43 (2008). GR 15 sets forth the uniform procedure for
the . . . sealing . . . of court records. GR 15(a). Court records include [a]ny document,
information, exhibit, or other thing that is maintained by a court in connection with a judicial
proceeding. GR 31(c)(4); GR 15(b)(2). Thus, GR 15 controls the analysis of whether a
particular court record should be sealed regardless of when and under what circumstances the
document entered the court record.
Sealing of records is appropriate if the court makes and enters written findings that
the specific sealing or redaction is justified by identified compelling privacy or safety
concerns that outweigh the public interest in access to the court record. GR 15(c)(2).
Sufficient privacy or safety concerns that may be weighed against the public interest
include findings that the sealing or redaction furthers a compelling circumstance. Id.
In Rufer v. Abbott Labs, 154 Wn.2d 530 (2005), and Dreiling v. Jain, 151 Wn.2d 900,
913-15 (2004), the Washington Supreme Court ruled that court records may be sealed if there
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
is a compelling interest which overrides the publics right to the open administration of
justice in maintaining the confidentiality of the document. Rufer, 154 Wn.2d at 549; cf. GR
15(c)(2). Courts have long held that protection of a companys trade secrets and confidential
company information can serve as a compelling interest justifying the sealing of court
documents and records. See Network Appliance, Inc. v. Sun Microsystems Inc., 2010 WL
841274, at *3-5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2010) (finding compelling interest to seal documents
discussing companys detailed business and marketing information and future business
plans that outweighed public interest in access to court record); In re Zyprexa Prods.
Liability Litig., 2009 WL 791540, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2009) (sealing documents
because disclosure of marketing strategies . . . would cause competitive harm to Lilly in its
current business); Metavante Corp. v. Emigrant Sav. Bank, 2008 WL 4722336, at *10 (E.D.
Wis. Oct. 24, 2008) (granting motion to seal nonpublic financial and business information,
including pricing, business plans and strategies); Joint Stock Soc. v. UDV N. Am., Inc., 104
F. Supp. 2d 390, 408-09 (D. Del. 2000) (affirming special master order sealing strategic
plans, and marketing information and recognizing that [t]he competitive harm to the
defendants [from public disclosure] is obvious because [o]nce competing
firms . . . obtained this information, they could incorporate it into their own strategic plans
and, thus, better position their products in the marketplace to the defendants detriment); see
also CR 26(c) (allowing entry of a protective order stating that a trade secret or other
confidential research, development, or commercial information not be disclosed or be
disclosed only in a designated way).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
B.
pursuant to the standard set forth in GR 15, Rufer, and Dreiling, for several reasons. First, as
in Zuccaro and the other cases cited above, Zillows Opposition Materials contain or
reference confidential information which Plaintiffs consider to be trade secret or otherwise
confidential, such as their lists of trade secrets allegedly misappropriated by Defendants.
Cognizant of the compelling privacy interests at stake, the parties designated these
documents as Confidential, or Outside Counsel Eyes Only pursuant to the protective
order. Likewise, Moves designation of certain of its materials as Outside Counsel Eyes
Only indicates that Move does not want their contents disclosed to the public because they
contain information that Move has deemed strategically important to its ability to compete in
the marketplace. Finally, Samuelsons designation of its materials as Confidential
indicates he does not want the contents disclosed to the public to protect his and his familys
privacy. As outlined above, this is the sort of proprietary and confidential business
information that courts regularly allow to be filed under seal. In short, publishing this
confidential information would subject the parties to unnecessary harm while serving no
countervailing public interest in transparency. The balancing test of GR 15 favors sealing
these documents.
VI.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Zillow respectfully requests that the Court file these documents under
seal.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
/s/Kathleen M. OSullivan
Susan E. Foster, WSBA No. 18030
SFoster@perkinscoie.com
Kathleen M. OSullivan, WSBA No. 27850
KOSullivan@perkinscoie.com
David J. Burman, WSBA No. 10611
DBurman@perkinscoie.com
Judith B. Jennison, WSBA No. 36463
JJennison@perkinscoie.com
Mary P. Gaston, WSBA No. 27258
MGaston@perkinscoie.com
Katherine G. Galipeau, WSBA No. 40812
KGalipeau@perkinscoie.com
Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Telephone: 206.359.8000
Facsimile: 206.359.9000
Attorneys for Defendant
Zillow, Inc.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On April 13, 2015, I caused to be served upon counsel of record, at the address stated
below, via the method of service indicated, a true and correct copy of the following
document: ZILLOWS MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL (DEFENDANT
ZILLOW, INC.S OPPOSITIONS TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REVISE SPECIAL
MASTER ORDERS RE: SUBPOENAS AND SUPPORTING DECLARATION OF
KATHLEEN M. OSULLIVAN)
jlovejoy@cablelang.com
LRC@cablelang.com
kalbritton@cablelang.com
jpetersen@cablelang.com
Clemens H. Barnes, Esq., WSBA No. 4905
Estera Gordon, WSBA No. 12655
K. Michael Fandel, WSBA No. 16281
Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP
Pier 70
2801 Alaskan Way, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98121-1128
Telephone: (206) 624-8300
Facsimile: (206) 340-9599
clemens.barnes@millernash.com
connie.hays@millernash.com
estera.gordon@millernash.com
michael.fandel@millernash.com
robert.mittenthal@millernash.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1
56920-0025/LEGAL125641248.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
bcaslin@jenner.com
rstone@jenner.com
nsaros@jenner.com
JNjathi@jenner.com
eglickstein@jenner.com
jatteberry@jenner.com
dsinger@jenner.com
drozansky@jenner.com
avanhoesen@jenner.com
James P. Savitt, WSBA No. 16847
Duffy Graham, WSBA No. 33103
Ryan Solomon, WSBA No. 43630
Savitt Bruce & Willey LLP
Joshua Green Building
1425 Fourth Avenue, Suite 800
Seattle, WA 98101-2272
jsavitt@sbwllp.com
dgraham@sbwllp.com
rsolomon@sbwllp.com
clein@sbwllp.com
I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the
foregoing is true and correct.
DATED this 13th day of April, 2015.
s/ June Starr
June Starr, Legal Secretary
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2
56920-0025/LEGAL125641248.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
No. 14-2-07669-0
[PROPOSED ORDER] GRANTING
ZILLOWS MOTION TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
(DEFENDANT ZILLOW, INC.S
OPPOSITIONS TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION
TO REVISE SPECIAL MASTER ORDERS
RE: SUBPOENAS AND SUPPORTING
DECLARATION OF KATHLEEN M.
OSULLIVAN)
v.
ZILLOW, INC., a Washington corporation,
ERROL SAMUELSON, an individual,
CURT BEARDSLEY, an individual, and
DOES 1-20,
Defendants.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
THIS MATTER came before the Court on Zillow, Inc.s Motion to File Documents
Under Seal (Defendant Zillow, Inc.s Oppositions to Plaintiffs Motion to Revise Special
Master Orders re: Subpoenas) and Supporting Declaration of Kathleen M. OSullivan
(Motion to Seal). The Court considered the Motion to Seal, Plaintiffs response to the
motions, if any, and the reply to the motions, if any, together with the pleadings and records
in this matter.
The Court has discretion to seal files and records pursuant to GR 15. See Woo v.
Firemans Fund Ins. Co., 137 Wn. App. 480, 486-87 (2007), reversed in part on other
grounds, 161 Wn.2d 43 (2008). Sealing of records is appropriate if the court makes and
enters written findings that the specific sealing or redaction is justified by identified
compelling privacy or safety concerns that outweigh the public interest in access to the court
record. GR 15(c)(2); see also Seattle Times Co. v. Ishikawa, 97 Wn.2d 30 (1982).
Sufficient privacy or safety concerns that may be weighed against the public interest
include, inter alia, findings that the sealing or redactions furthers a compelling
circumstance. GR 15(c)(2).
Being duly advised, the Court FINDS, for the reasons stated below, that there is a
compelling interest to seal specific portions of the court record that outweighs the public
interest in access to those records:
1. Defendant Zillow, Inc.s Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Revise Special
Masters Order Quashing Key Portions of the Document Subpoena to Trulia, Defendant
Zillow, Inc.s Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Revise Special Masters Order Re
Subpoenas to Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan (together, Opposition Briefs), and the
Declaration of Kathleen M. OSullivan in Support of Zillows Oppositions to Plaintiffs
Motions to Revise Special Masters Orders discuss, reference, and cite to documents in the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
record that the parties have designated Outside Counsel Eyes Only or Confidential
under the Second Amended Protective Order, indicating that each of the parties has a good
faith basis for determining that the information within these documents concern confidential
and sensitive business information that, if made public, could cause substantial harm to one
or more parties. The Opposition Briefs and the OSullivan Declaration contain information
Plaintiffs claim as trade secrets and highly confidential business strategy and Defendant
Samuelson claims may contain personal information appropriately kept out of the public
record.
2. The Court finds, under GR 15, that the parties have a compelling interest in
maintaining the confidentiality of the Opposition Briefs, which reference and discuss
Plaintiffs sensitive business information and materials designated both Confidential and
Outside Counsel Eyes Only pursuant to the Second Amended Protective Order, and the
included OSullivan Declaration, which attaches as an exhibit a document designated by
Plaintiffs as Outside Counsel Eyes Only and which lists claimed trade secrets at issue in
the litigation.
3. The Court finds that sealing the materials described above is the least
restrictive means available to protect the interests at stake and that the publics interest in
disclosure is not greater than the parties interests in maintaining the confidentiality of these
materials.
THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED:
1.
2.
The Clerk shall file the following three pleadings submitted by Defendant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Perkins Coie LL
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Telephone: 206.359.8000
Facsimile: 206.359.9000
Attorneys for Defendant Zillow, Inc.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On April 13, 2015, I caused to be served upon the below named counsel of record, at
the address stated below, via the method of service indicated, a true and correct copy of the
following document: [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ZILLOWS MOTION TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL (DEFENDANT ZILLOW, INC.S OPPOSITIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS MOTIONS TO REVISE SPECIAL MASTER ORDERS RE: SUBPOENAS
AND SUPPORTING DECLARATION OF KATHLEEN M. OSULLIVAN)
Jack M. Lovejoy, WSBA No. 36962
Lawrence R. Cock, WSBA No. 20326
Cable, Langenbach, Kinerk & Bauer, LLP
Suite 3500, 1000 Second Avenue Building
Seattle, WA 98104-1048
Telephone: (206) 292-8800
Facsimile: (206) 292-0494
jlovejoy@cablelang.com
LRC@cablelang.com
kalbritton@cablelang.com
jpetersen@cablelang.com
Clemens H. Barnes, Esq., WSBA No. 4905
Estera Gordon, WSBA No. 12655
K. Michael Fandel, WSBA No. 16281
Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP
Pier 70
2801 Alaskan Way, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98121-1128
Telephone: (206) 624-8300
Facsimile: (206) 340-9599
clemens.barnes@millernash.com
connie.hays@millernash.com
estera.gordon@millernash.com
michael.fandel@millernash.com
robert.mittenthal@millernash.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1
99999-9328/LEGAL125644226.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
bcaslin@jenner.com
rstone@jenner.com
nsaros@jenner.com
JNjathi@jenner.com
eglickstein@jenner.com
jatteberry@jenner.com
dsinger@jenner.com
drozansky@jenner.com
avanhoesen@jenner.com
James P. Savitt, WSBA No. 16847
Duffy Graham, WSBA No. 33103
Ryan Solomon, WSBA No. 43630
Savitt Bruce & Willey LLP
Joshua Green Building
1425 Fourth Avenue, Suite 800
Seattle, WA 98101-2272
jsavitt@sbwllp.com
dgraham@sbwllp.com
rsolomon@sbwllp.com
clein@sbwllp.com
I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the
foregoing is true and correct.
DATED this 13th day of April, 2015.
s/ June Starr
June Starr, Legal Secretary
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2
99999-9328/LEGAL125644226.1