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 ON MOTIONS TO SEAL
6 v.
Re: Dkt. Nos. 186, 188
7 GOOGLE LLC,
8 Defendant.
9 Now before the Court are Google’s Administrative Motions to File Documents Under Seal
10 (Dkt. 186, 188) seeking to seal portions of the parties’ May 11, 2021 and May 12, 2021 Joint
11 Discovery Letter Briefs (Dkt. 187, 189).
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 Court’s Ruling
Document Sought to be on Motion to Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling
6 Sealed Seal
Joint Letter Brief re Additional GRANTED as to Narrowly tailored to protect
7 Google ESI Custodians (Dkt. 187) redacted portions at confidential and proprietary
3:15, 6:8, 6:10 information regarding Google
8
employees and their roles and
9 responsibilities within Google as
they relate to internal, proprietary
10 Google services.
Exhibit C (Dkt. 187-3) GRANTED as to Narrowly tailored to protect
11 redacted portions at confidential and proprietary
pp. 1, 2 information regarding Google
12
employees and their roles and
13 responsibilities within Google as
they relate to internal, proprietary
14 Google services.
Joint Letter Brief re Additional GRANTED as to Narrowly tailored to protect
15
30(b)(6) Deposition (Dkt. 189) redacted portions at highly confidential and
16 1:4-5, 1:19, 1:20- proprietary information regarding
22, 1:23-24, 1:25, Google’s internal systems and
17 2:3, 2:4, 2:5, 2:9, operations, including details
2:25, 2:26, 2:27, related to the various types of
18 4:11-12, 4:15-16, identifiers/cookies Google uses
4:25-27, 5:2-3, 5:4, internally and their proprietary
19
5:9, 5:10, 5:12-14, functions, the various types of
20 5:15-16 data logs maintained by Google,
including the information
21 contained in those log and the
cost in man-hours to properly
22 separate out the requested data,
and the role and responsibilities
23
of its employee as they relate to
24 internal, proprietary Google
services.
25 Exhibit A (Dkt. 189-1) GRANTED as to Narrowly tailored to protect
redacted portions at highly confidential and
26 2:8-9, 2:12, 2:13, proprietary information regarding
2:17, 3:2-3 Google’s internal systems and
27
operations, including details
1 identifiers / cookies Google uses
internally and their proprietary
> functions.
Exhibit B (Dkt. 189-2) DENIED Google has submitted two
3 WITHOUT unredacted versions of Exhibit B
PREJUDICE (Dkt. 188-8 and 188-9, i.e.,
4 Exhibits F and G to the
5 Declaration of Viola Trebicka
submitted in support of Google’s
6 motion to seal) with different
proposed redactions. The
7 declaration does not describe or
explain Exhibits F and G. Within
8 7 days of the date of this order,
9 Google must file either (1)
corrected proposed redacted and
10 unredacted versions of Exhibit B
along with a proposed order; or
11 (2) an explanation of the existing
unredacted versions of Exhibit B
(1 (Dkt. 188-8 and 188-9).
SO ORDERED.
14 || Dated: May 25, 2021
16 Seesom yar
17 SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28