The opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4 PATRICK CALHOUN, et al., Case No. 20-cv-05146-LHK (SVK)
5 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN
6 v. PART MOTIONS TO SEAL
7 GOOGLE LLC, Re: Dkt. Nos. 101, 108, 117, 119
8 Defendant.
9 Now before the Court are the parties’ Administrative Motions to File Documents Under
10 Seal (Dkt. 101, 108, 117, and 119) seeking to seal certain materials submitted to the Court in
11 connection with the parties’ joint letter brief and subsequent briefing on Google’s motion for a
12 protective order (Dkt. 102, 109, 118, and 120).
13 Courts recognize a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents,
14 including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d
15 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7
16 (1978)). A request to seal court records therefore starts with a “strong presumption in favor of
access.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d
17
1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The standard for overcoming the presumption of public access to
18
court records depends on the purpose for which the records are filed with the court. A party
19
seeking to seal court records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the
20
underlying cause of action” must demonstrate “compelling reasons” that support secrecy. Ctr. For
21
Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016). For records attached to
22
motions that re “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of the case,” the lower
23
“good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) applies. Id.; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. A party
24
moving to seal court records must also comply with the procedures established by Civil Local
25
Rule 79-5.
26
Here, the “good cause” standard applies because the information the parties seek to seal
27
was submitted to the Court in connection with a discovery-related motion, rather than a motion
1 that concerns the merits of the case. The Court may reach different conclusions regarding sealing
2 these documents under different standards or in a different context. Having considered the
3 motions to seal, supporting declarations, and the pleadings on file, and good cause appearing, the
4 Court ORDERS as follows:
5
6 Court’s Ruling
Document Sought to be on Motion to Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling
7 Sealed Seal
Joint Letter Brief Regarding Dispute GRANTED as to Narrowly tailored to protect
8 Concerning Google’s Motion for redacted portions at confidential technical information
Protective Order 1:2-5, 1:26-2:2, 2:7-9, regarding the operation of Google’s
9
5:9 products, including the volume of
10 data collected in certain log files and
retention periods applicable thereto.
11 Joint Letter Brief Regarding Dispute GRANTED as to Narrowly tailored to protect
Concerning Google’s Motion for redacted portions at confidential technical information
12 Protective Order 2:11-15, 3:7-8, 3:12- regarding the operation of Google’s
13, 4:26-28 products, including the nature of the
13
data contained in certain log files.
14 Google’s Motion for a Protective DENIED WITHOUT The Proposed Order (Dkt. 108-2)
Order PREJUDICE does not identify the page and line
15 number of the redacted information
sought to be sealed. See Civil L.R.
16
79-5(d)(1)(B) (requiring that
proposed order “lists in table format
17
each document or portion thereof
18 that is sought to be sealed”). Google
may submit a corrected proposed
19 order with the missing information
within 7 days of the date of this
20
order.
21 Declaration of Andre Golueke DENIED WITHOUT The Proposed Order (Dkt. 108-2)
PREJUDICE does not identify the page and line
22 number of the redacted information
sought to be sealed. See Civil L.R.
23 79-5(d)(1)(B) (requiring that
proposed order “lists in table format
24
each document or portion thereof
25 that is sought to be sealed”). Google
may submit a corrected proposed
26 order with the missing information
within 7 days of the date of this
27 order.
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Google’s DENIED WITHOUT The Trebicka Declaration (Dkt. 122)
1
Motion for a Protective Order PREJUDICE filed in support of the motion to seal
2 appears to seek sealing of a subset of
information identified in Plaintiffs’
3 proposed order (Dkt. 117-2) but
Google does not submit an
4 alternative proposed order that
identifies the page and line number
5
of the redacted information sought to
6 be sealed. See Civil L.R. 79-
5(d)(1)(B) (requiring that proposed
7 order “lists in table format each
document or portion thereof that is
8 sought to be sealed”). Google may
submit a corrected proposed order
9
with the missing information within
10 7 days of the date of this order.
Declaration of Lesley Weaver in DENIED WITHOUT The Trebicka Declaration (Dkt. 122)
11 Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to PREJUDICE filed in support of the motion to seal
Google’s Motion for a Protective appears to seek sealing of a subset of
12 Order information identified in Plaintiffs’
proposed order (Dkt. 117-2) but
13
Google does not submit an
14 alternative proposed order that
identifies the page and line number
15 of the redacted information sought to
be sealed. See Civil L.R. 79-
16
5(d)(1)(B) (requiring that proposed
17 order “lists in table format each
document or portion thereof that is
18 sought to be sealed”). Google may
submit a corrected proposed order
19 with the missing information within
7 days of the date of this order.
20
Exhibit A to the Declaration of Lesley DENIED WITHOUT The Trebicka Declaration (Dkt. 122)
21 Weaver in Support of Plaintiffs’ PREJUDICE filed in support of the motion to seal
Opposition to Google’s Motion for a appears to seek sealing of a subset of
22 Protective Order information identified in Plaintiffs’
proposed order (Dkt. 117-2) but
23 Google does not submit an
alternative proposed order that
24
identifies the page and line number
25 of the redacted information sought to
be sealed. See Civil L.R. 79-
26 5(d)(1)(B) (requiring that proposed
order “lists in table format each
27 document or portion thereof that is
With the missing information within
2 7 days of the date of this order.
Declaration of Dr. Matthew Green in [DENIED WITHOUT |The Trebicka Declaration (Dkt. 122)
3 Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to PREJUDICE filed in support of the motion to seal
Google’s Motion for a Protective appears to seek sealing of a subset of
4 Order information identified in Plaintiffs’
5 proposed order (Dkt. 117-2) but
Google does not submit an
6 alternative proposed order that
identifies the page and line number
7 of the redacted information sought to
be sealed. See Civil L.R. 79-
8 5(d)(1)(B) (requiring that proposed
9 order “lists in table format each
document or portion thereof that is
10 sought to be sealed”). Google may
submit a corrected proposed order
11 with the missing information within
7 days of the date of this order..
12 Google’s Reply in Support of Motion [DENIED WITHOUT |The proposed order (Dkt. 119-2)
13 for a Protective Order PREJUDICE does not identify the page and line
number of the redacted information
v 14 sought to be sealed. See Civil L.R.
79-5(d)(1)(B) (requiring that
15 proposed order “lists in table format
2 each document or portion thereof
a 16 that is sought to be sealed”). Google
17 may submit a corrected proposed
5 order with the missing information
Z 18 within 7 days of the date of this
order.
19
The documents or portions thereof as to which the Court has denied the motions to seal
20
without prejudice shall remain under seal until the Court’s ruling with respect to Google’s
21
submission of a corrected proposed order as outlined above or until expiration of the deadline to
22
submit such a corrected proposed order if none is filed.
23
SO ORDERED.
24
Dated: March 5, 2021
25
26 Suse veut
27 SUSAN VAN KEULEN
28 United States Magistrate Judge