Opinion

Brown v. Google LLC

Court
District Court, N.D. California
Filed
May 10, 2021
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 18.7%

The opinion

1

2

3

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7 CHASOM BROWN, et al., Case No. 20-cv-03664-LHK (SVK)

8 Plaintiffs,

ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE

9 v. MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

10 GOOGLE LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 154

11 Defendant.

12 Now before the Court is Google’s Administrative Motions to File Documents Under Seal

13 (Dkt. 154) seeking to seal portions of the Parties’ May 6, 2021 Joint Discovery Submission (Dkt.

14 155 ).

15 Courts recognize a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents,

16 including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d

17 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7

18 (1978)). A request to seal court records therefore starts with a “strong presumption in favor of

19 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

20

court records depends on the purpose for which the records are filed with the court. A party

21

seeking to seal court records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the

22

underlying cause of action” must demonstrate “compelling reasons” that support secrecy. Ctr. For

23

Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016). For records attached to

24

motions that re “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of the case,” the lower

25

“good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) applies. Id.; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. A party

26

moving to seal court records must also comply with the procedures established by Civil Local

27

1 Here, the “good cause” standard applies because the information the parties seek to seal

2 || was submitted to the Court in connection with a discovery-related motion, rather than a motion

3 || that concerns the merits of the case. The Court may reach different conclusions regarding sealing

4 || these documents under different standards or in a different context. Having considered the

5 motions to seal, supporting declarations, and the pleadings on file, and good cause appearing, the

6 || Court ORDERS as follows:

4

8 a Court’s Ruling

□□□ on Motion to Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling

9 Sealed Seal

GRANTED asto _ \Narrowly tailored to protect highly

10 Joint Submission redacted portions __ confidential and proprietary

at 2, 3 (Dispute information regarding highly sensitive

11 P3) features of Google’s internal systems

2 and operations, including details

related to the cookies Google uses

& 13 internally and their proprietary

= functions, that Google maintains as

v 14 confidential in the ordinary course of

its business and is not generally

2 15 own to the public or Google’s

2 competitors.

a 16

SO ORDERED.

vo

Dated: May 10, 2021

Z 18

19 S

20 SUSAN VAN KEULEN

United States Magistrate Judge

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.