# Brown v. Google LLC

> District Court, N.D. California · May 10, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10067657

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** May 10, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10067657

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10067657. Public record. Not legal advice.