The opinion
1
2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5 ANIBAL RODRIGUEZ, et al., Case No. 20-cv-04688-RS (AGT)
6 Plaintiffs,
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
7 v. MOTION TO SEAL
8 GOOGLE LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 200
9 Defendant.
10 The request to seal portions of the parties’ January 7, 2022, letter brief is granted in part.
11 || Google’s internal project names may be sealed and replaced with Na***, K***, and T***. The ESI
12 || search-term hit counts may not be sealed. Google hasn’t convinced the Court that “specific preju-
5 13 || dice or harm will result” if the hit counts are publicly disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v.
S 14 Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002). Also, sealing the hit counts would
3 15 || hinder the public’s understanding of the dispute. The Court considered the hit counts, among other
a 16 || things, in deciding which ESI searches needed to be run.
3 17 By February 17, 2022, the parties must file a public version of the January 7 letter brief that
18 || complies with this order.
19 IT IS SO ORDERED.
20 Dated: February 10, 2022
21
22
ALEX G. TSE
23 United States Magistrate Judge
24
25
26
27
28