MANHATTAN (LN) — Senior U.S. District Judge Paul G. Castel on Thursday rejected a bid by Gannett Co. and Daily Mail to permanently seal the entirety of their expert reports in the high-profile antitrust lawsuit against Google, ordering the publishers to submit narrowly tailored redactions instead.
The ruling resolves a wave of sealing motions filed by Google, the publisher plaintiffs, and more than a dozen non-party tech companies as the case moves toward summary judgment.
Castel granted most requests to redact sensitive commercial information, including internal Google URLs, employee contact details, and proprietary data from companies such as Amazon, Microsoft, Yahoo, and The Walt Disney Company. The judge found these redactions were narrowly tailored to prevent competitive harm.
However, Castel denied Gannett and Daily Mail’s motion to keep under seal the full reports of their experts David Sibley, Shengwu Li, Ali Hortacsu, and James Mickens, as well as Google’s expert Judith Chevalier.
The publishers argued that redacting specific passages was “unduly inefficient and burdensome” and that the public-access analysis would vary from page to page. They noted they cited only 94 of the 742 paragraphs in Sibley’s report on market definition and monopoly power.
Castel rejected that argument, writing that the “purported inefficiency of narrowly tailoring their redactions is not a higher value that weighs against public disclosure.”
The judge noted that the experts’ opinions on market definition, Google’s conduct, damages, and source code are likely central to the summary judgment motions.
Gannett and Daily Mail acknowledged that the reports would eventually be disclosed at trial, stating that “the experts’ opinions can be made accessible to the public at that time.”
Castel denied the sealing motion without prejudice, giving the publishers until June 9 to file a renewed motion with specific redactions.
The judge also ordered the public filing of several documents that had been provisionally sealed but lacked a basis for continued secrecy, including a redlined version of Inform’s opposition memorandum and Inform’s opposition to Google’s motion to exclude its experts.
Non-party Yieldmo requested “attorneys’ eyes only” status for future productions related to a subpoena from Group 2 Publisher Plaintiffs, arguing that disclosure to its direct clients would create a “severe competitive disadvantage.” Castel directed Yieldmo to confer with opposing counsel and jointly submit a proposed order detailing the protections it seeks.