Opinion

Calhoun v. Google LLC

Court
District Court, N.D. California
Filed
Jun 21, 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 PATRICK CALHOUN, et al., Case No. 20-cv-05146-LHK (SVK)

8 Plaintiffs,

ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE

9 v. MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

PORTIONS OF THE JUNE 2, 2021

10 GOOGLE LLC, DISCOVERY HEARING TRANSCRIPT

11 Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 221

12 Now before the Court is the Parties’ joint submission (Dkt. 221), in which Google requests

13 that the Court seal portions of the transcript of the June 2, 2021 discovery hearing.

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

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

16 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7

17 (1978)). A request to seal court records therefore starts with a “strong presumption in favor of

18 access.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d

19 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

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

Rule 79-5.

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:

7

8 Court’s Ruling

poe a on Motion to Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling

9 ealed Seal

June 2, 2021 Discovery Hearing GRANTED as to Narrowly tailored to protect

10 Transcript redacted portions at | confidential technical information

13:2, 13:8-11, regarding Google’s internal

aT systems and operations, including

12 37-15-20, 37-22-24 details related to the various

38:2-5.46-3-11. __ | types of identifiers/cookies

13 46:17. Google uses internally and their

proprietary functions

© SO ORDERED.

15

Dated: June 21, 2021

16

vo

17

Stason yoru

Z 18 SUSAN VAN KEULEN

19 United States Magistrate Judge

20

21

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.