# Brown v. Google LLC

> District Court, N.D. California · May 26, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10067877

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** May 26, 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/10067877

## Opinion text

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 JOINT SUBMISSION RE
6 v. SEALING PORTIONS OF APRIL 29,
2021 HEARING TRANSCRIPT
7 GOOGLE LLC,
Re: Dkt. No. 170
8 Defendant.

9 Now before the Court is the Parties’ joint submission (Dkt. 170), in which Google requests
10 that the Court seal portions of the transcript of the April 29, 2021 discovery hearing.
11 Courts recognize a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents,
12 including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d
13 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7
14 (1978)). A request to seal court records therefore starts with a “strong presumption in favor of
15 access.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d
16 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The standard for overcoming the presumption of public access to
court records depends on the purpose for which the records are filed with the court. A party
17
seeking to seal court records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the
18
underlying cause of action” must demonstrate “compelling reasons” that support secrecy. Ctr. For
19
Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016). For records attached to
20
motions that re “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of the case,” the lower
21
“good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) applies. Id.; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. A party
22
moving to seal court records must also comply with the procedures established by Civil Local
23
Rule 79-5.
24
Here, the “good cause” standard applies because the information the parties seek to seal
25
was submitted to the Court in connection with a discovery-related motion, rather than a motion
26
that concerns the merits of the case. The Court may reach different conclusions regarding sealing
27
1 motions to seal, supporting declarations, and the pleadings on file, and good cause appearing, the
2 |} Court ORDERS as follows:
3
4 D Souch Court’s Ruling
CES on Motion to Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling
5 ealed Seal
April 29, 2021 Discovery Hearing GRANTED as to Narrowly tailored to protect
6 Transcript redacted portions at | confidential information
7 6:17, 6:19, 7:6, 7:7, | regarding Google’s internal
TAO, 9:22, 12:3, systems and operations, including
12:6-9, 12:11-12, detai :
g etails related to the various
13:23, 15:10, 17:20- f identifiers/cooki
21, 18:8-9, 22:14- types of identifiers/cookies □
9 15, 22:16-20, 26:9, | Google uses internally and their
26:18, 26:19 proprietary functions, the various
10 types of data logs maintained by
Google.
11
SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2021

i,

©
15
SUSAN VAN KEULEN
A 16 United States Magistrate Judge

17

Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10067877. Public record. Not legal advice.