# Brown v. Google LLC

> District Court, N.D. California · November 23, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10069689

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** November 23, 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/10069689

## 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 ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE
7 v. UNDER SEAL

8 GOOGLE LLC, Re: Dkt. Nos. 321, 333, 339, 340
9 Defendant.

10 Before the Court are several administrative motions to file under seal materials associated
11 with discovery disputes in this case. Dkt. 321, 333, 339, 340; see also Dkt. 334.
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. 321

5
Court’s Ruling
6 Document Sought to be on Motion to Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling
Sealed Seal
7 GRANTED as to
Plaintiffs’ Demonstratives redacted portions at: The Court previously denied this
8 motion to seal without prejudice and
9
Pages 3-6, 11-14, 16, gave Google until November 19,
18-19, 26, 28-33, 42- 2021 to submit the declaration
10 51 required under Civil Local Rule 79-
5. Dkt. 330. Google submitted the

11 required declaration by the deadline
set by the Court. Dkt. 334.
12
The information requested to be
13 sealed is narrowly tailored to protect
Google’s confidential and
14
proprietary information regarding
15 sensitive features of Google’s
internal systems and operations,
16 including details related to project
names, cookies, internal identifiers,
17 as well as Google’s internal
communications and practices with
18
regard to Incognito and its
19 proprietary functions, that Google
maintains as confidential in the
20 ordinary course of its business and is
not generally known to the public or
21 Google’s competitors.
22 2. Dkt. 333

23
Court’s Ruling
24 Document Sought to be on Motion to Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling
Sealed Seal
25 September 30, 2021 GRANTED as to Narrowly tailored to protect
Hearing Transcript redacted portions at: confidential technical information
26
regarding sensitive features of
27 59:17; 65:4-6, 68:13- Google’s internal systems and
14; 69:1-2, 9-10, 14 operations, including Google’s
proprietary functions that Google
1
maintains as confidential in the
2 ordinary course of its business and
is not generally known to the public
3 or Google’s competitors as well as
Plaintiffs’ personally identifiable
4 information.
5 3. Dkt. 339

6
Court’s Ruling
7 Document Sought to be on Motion to Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling
Sealed Seal
8 GRANTED as to
November 12, 2021 Order redacted portions at: Narrowly tailored to protect
9 confidential and proprietary
information regarding sensitive
10 4:9; 4:13; 4:15
features of Google’s internal
11 identifiers, systems, projects, data
structures, and operations that
12 Google does not share publicly,
including particular internal data
13 sources Google was ordered to
search for data relating to Plaintiffs,
14
that Google maintains as
15 confidential in the ordinary course of
its business and is not generally
16 known to the public or Google’s
competitors.
17
GRANTED as to
18 Exhibit 1 (Brown) to redacted portions at: Narrowly tailored to protect
November 12, 2021 Order confidential and proprietary
19 Paragraphs 3.1-3.7 information regarding sensitive
features of Google’s internal
20 identifiers, systems, projects, data
structures, and operations that
21 Google does not share publicly,
including particular internal data
22
sources Google was ordered to
23 search for data relating to Plaintiffs,
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
1
4, Dkt. 340
2
3 Court’s Ruling
on Motion to Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling
4 Sealed Seal
November 4, 2021 Hearing GRANTED as_to
5 Transcript edacted portions at: [Natrowly tailored to protect
onfidential technical information
6 9:13; 11:9-10; 11:14,"egarding sensitive features of
7 12:7; 12:19; 13:15-17,Google’s internal systems and
13:19-20; 13:24: 14:4: operations, including details related
8 14:7-9: 14:14: 14:19-t0 Google’s internal systems,
14:21-22: 1 5:22-25:practices, projects, identifiers,
9 -1_d) 16:19 16-14-cookies, the various types of logs
16:1-4; 16:12; 16:14;/90"'«* YP’ □□
16:18-24: 17:1-2: aintained by Google, information
10 17:4-5: 17:9-12; ontained in those logs, as well as
11 17:16: 19:1: 20:3-5{Google’s internal communications
21:2: 23:19: 23:22-23;fand practices with regard to
12 97:2: 27:13; 28:13-15;Incognito and their proprietary
28:24-25: 29:1-44 unctions, that Google maintains as
13 10-14: 31:18.Confidential in the ordinary course of
4 31:25; 32:3: 32:19-21 business and is not generally
33:5: 33:12; 33:21,known to the public or Google’s
34:19; 34:22-25; 35:1-ompetitors.
6; 35:18-22; 36:1;
16 36:8-9; 36:19-24;
37:4-7; 37:10; 37:15-
16; 37:25; 38-1; 39:2-
12 25; 40:13; 40:25;
41:1-9; 41:11; 41:14-
19 15; 42:12; 42:14-15;
42:20-21; 42:23-25;
20 43:1; 43:3; 44:16-18;
1 44:22-25; 45:1-2;
46:4-16; 47:2; 47:6;
2 49:3-6; 50:6; 50:9-13;
51:9; 51:11-17
23
24 SO ORDERED.
25 || Dated: November 23, 2021
26
” Seesem yer
28 SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10069689. Public record. Not legal advice.