# Brown v. Google LLC

> District Court, N.D. California · September 30, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10069131

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** September 30, 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/10069131

## Opinion text

1
2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5 CHASOM BROWN, et al., Case No. 20-cv-03664-LHK (SVK)

6 Plaintiffs,
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL
7 v.
Re: Dkt. Nos. 255, 257, 260, 280
8 GOOGLE LLC,
9 Defendant.

10 Before the Court are several administrative motions to file under seal materials associated
11 with discovery disputes in this case. Dkt. Nos. 255, 257, 260, 280.
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
17 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
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 discovery-related motions, rather than a motion that
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 1. Dkt. 255

5
Court’s Ruling
6 Document Sought to be on Motion to Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling
Sealed Seal
7 June 2, 2021 Hearing Transcript GRANTED as to Narrowly tailored to protect
redacted portions at: confidential technical information
8
regarding features of Google’s
9 13:2, 13:8, 13:11, internal systems and operations,
32:18-20, 34:10, including Google’s internal policies,
10 34:23-25, 36:23-37:3, internal data structures, internal
37:8-11, 37:15-16, identifiers/cookies and their
11 37:19-20, 37:22-24, proprietary functions, that Google
38:3-5, 46:3-11, maintains as confidential in the
12
46:14-15, 46:17-23, ordinary course of its business and is
13 46:25, 47:1, 70:20, not generally known to the public or
70:24, 71:2. Google’s competitors.
14
15 2. Dkt. 257

16
Court’s Ruling
17 Document Sought to be on Motion to Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling
Sealed Seal
18 Joint Submission in Response to Dkt. GRANTED as to Narrowly tailored to protect
242, 242-1 Re Custodians and Search redacted portions at information regarding features of
19
Terms pages 3, 4 Google’s internal systems and
20 operations, including details related
to internal cookies, identifiers, and
21 projects and their proprietary
functions, as well as Google’s
22 internal communications and
practices with regard to Incognito,
23
that Google maintains as
24 confidential in the ordinary course of
its business and is not generally
25 known to the public or Google’s
competitors.
26

27
3. Dkt. 260

2 Court’s Ruling
Document Sought to be on Motion to Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling
3 Sealed Seal
August 12, 2021 Hearing Transcript | GRANTED asto |Narrowly tailored to protect
4 redacted portions at: confidential technical information
5 regarding features of Google’s
12:22-24; 14:3; 53:23 }internal systems and operations,
6 including Google’s internal data
structures, internal identifiers and
7 heir proprietary functions, as well as
plaintiff health information that
8 Google maintains as confidential in
9 he ordinary course of its business
and is not generally known to the
10 public or Google’s competitors.
11 4. Dkt. 280
Court’s Ruling
Document Sought to be on Motion to Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling
Sealed Seal
v 14 Joint Submission in Response to Dkt.| GRANTED as to |Narrowly tailored to protect
242 re Status of Discovery Disputes | redacted portions at: jconfidential information regarding
15 features of Google’s internal systems
A 16 pages 27, 37, 41, 43, land operations, including details
44 related to cookies, internal
3 17 identifiers, and financial projections
as well as Google’s internal
Z 18 ommunications and practices with
regard to Incognito, X-Client-Data
19 Header and their proprietary
functions, that Google maintains as
20 . .
onfidential in the ordinary course of
21 its business and is not generally
known to the public or Google’s
22 ompetitors.
23 SO ORDERED.
24 Dated: September 30, 2021
25
26 Stessen yarYt—
SUSAN VAN KEULEN
27 United States Magistrate Judge
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10069131. Public record. Not legal advice.