The opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4 CHASOM BROWN, et al., Case No. 20-cv-03664-LHK (SVK)
5 Plaintiffs,
ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE
6 v. MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
7 GOOGLE LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 139
8 Defendant.
9 Now before the Court is Google’s Administrative Motions to File Documents Under Seal
10 (Dkt. 139) seeking to seal portions of the parties’ April 23, 2021 Joint Discovery Letter Brief
11 (Dkt. 140).
12 Courts recognize a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents,
13 including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d
14 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7
15 (1978)). A request to seal court records therefore starts with a “strong presumption in favor of
16 access.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d
1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The standard for overcoming the presumption of public access to
17
court records depends on the purpose for which the records are filed with the court. A party
18
seeking to seal court records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the
19
underlying cause of action” must demonstrate “compelling reasons” that support secrecy. Ctr. For
20
Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016). For records attached to
21
motions that re “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of the case,” the lower
22
“good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) applies. Id.; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. A party
23
moving to seal court records must also comply with the procedures established by Civil Local
24
Rule 79-5.
25
Here, the “good cause” standard applies because the information the parties seek to seal
26
was submitted to the Court in connection with a discovery-related motion, rather than a motion
27
1 these documents under different standards or in a different context. Having considered the
2 || motions to seal, supporting declarations, and the pleadings on file, and good cause appearing, the
3 || Court ORDERS as follows:
4
5 Document Court’s Ruling on
6 Sought to be Motion to Seal Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling
Sealed
7 oint Discovery GRANTED as to redacted [Narrowly tailored to protect highly confidential anc
Statement, Joint portions at 4:11-15, 4:17, [proprietary information regarding highly sensitive
8 Statement Regarding 4:18-19, 4:27, 5:10, 5:14 {features of Google’s internal systems and
lass Member operations, including details related to the various
9 Identification (Chart A types of unauthenticated identifiers/cookies Google
# P6) ses internally and their proprietary functions, that
10 Google maintains as confidential in the ordinary
course of its business and is not generally known to
he public or Google’s competitors.
12
13 oint Discovery GRANTED as to redacted [Narrowly tailored to protect highly confidential anc
= Statement, Chart B portions at 13 (P6, proprietary information regarding highly sensitive
Plaintiffs RFP 10), 15-16 {features of Google’s internal systems and
S (P9, Plaintiffs RFP 86), —_ joperations, including details related to the various
15 16-17 (P9, Plaintiffs RFP types of unauthenticated identifiers/cookies Google
87), 18 (P9, Plaintiffs RFP juses internally and their proprietary functions, that
16 92), 20 (P9, Plaintiffs RFP |Google maintains as confidential in the ordinary
128), 21-22 (P9, Plaintiffs |course of its business and is not generally known to
17 RFP 129), 23 (P9, he public or Google’s competitors.
5 oe
7 18 Plaintiffs RFP 130)
19 oint Discovery GRANTED as to redacted | Narrowly tailored to protect information
Statement, Chart C portions at pages 30-32 concerning details of Plaintiffs’ private browsing
20 (Interrogatory No. 2), 36- | and personal email addresses, which Plaintiffs
37 (Interrogatory No. 5) maintain is confidential and not generally known
21 to the public.
22
SO ORDERED.
23
Dated: May 4, 2021
24
25 S vi K (
26 SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge
28