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. MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE
UNDER SEAL
10 GOOGLE LLC,
Re: Dkt. Nos. 399, 401, 409
11 Defendant.
12 Before the Court are several administrative motions to file under seal materials associated
13 with discovery disputes in this case. Dkt. 399, 401, 409; see also Dkt. 407, 408.
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
court records depends on the purpose for which the records are filed with the court. A party
20
seeking to seal court records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the
21
underlying cause of action” must demonstrate “compelling reasons” that support secrecy. Ctr. For
22
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 discovery-related motions, rather than a motion that
3 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 1. Dkt. 399
8
Court’s Ruling
9 Document Sought to be on Motion to Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling
Sealed Seal
10 Joint Submission in Response to Dkt. GRANTED as to Narrowly tailored to protect confidential
397 Re: Status of Discovery Disputes – redacted portions at: technical information regarding
11 Second Topic sensitive features of Google’s internal
12 2:21-22; 2:24-25; systems and operations, including
3:1-4; 3:10-12; details related to Google’s projects, data
13 4:11-12 logs and their proprietary functions, that
Google maintains as confidential in the
14 ordinary course of its business and is
not generally known to the public or
15 Google’s competitors.
Exhibit A to Joint Discovery Brief GRANTED as to Narrowly tailored to protect confidential
16 redacted portions at: technical information regarding
1-2, 5-6, 8 sensitive features of Google’s internal
17 systems and operations, including
details related to Google’s projects, data
18 logs, internal identifiers/cookies and
their proprietary functions, that Google
19 maintains as confidential in the ordinary
course of its business and is not
20 generally known to the public or
Google’s competitors.
21
2. Dkt. 401
22
23 Court’s Ruling
Document Sought to be on Motion to Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling
24 Sealed Seal
Joint Submission in Response to Dkt. GRANTED as to Narrowly tailored to protect
25 397 Re: ESI Custodians redacted portions at: confidential information regarding
26 Google’s internal strategies, system
2:7; 2:8-9; 2:10-12; designs, and business practices for
27 2:15-17; 2:18-19; operating and maintaining many of
2:22-23; 3:1-2 its services and products,
1 onfidential information could affect
Google’s competitive standing as
2 ompetitors may alter their identifier
system designs and practices relating
3 o competing products. It may also
lace Google at an increased risk of
4 yber security threats, as third
arties may seek to use the
5 . . . ,
information to compromise Google’s
6 identifier systems.
7 3. Dkt. 409
8 Court’s Ruling
9 Document Sought to be on Motion to Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling
Sealed Seal
10 December 13, 2021 Joint Submission | GRANTED as to Narrowly tailored to protect
portions highlighted {confidential information that Google
11 in yellow at: maintains as confidential in the
ordinary course of its business and is
12 3:11-12; 3:19-21; Inot generally known to the public or
5 413 5:26-28; 6:28 Google’s competitors.
= Appendix A GRANTED as to Narrowly tailored to protect
v 14 portions highlighted {confidential information that Google
© in yellow at: maintains as confidential in the
15 ordinary course of its business and is
2 7:9; 7:10; 7:12 Inot generally known to the public or
16 Google’s competitors
& ~
SO ORDERED.
a 18 Dated: January 6, 2022
19
20 Suse yar Kul 7
21 SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28