The opinion
1
2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5 CHASOM BROWN, et al., Case No. 20-cv-03664-YGR (SVK)
6 Plaintiffs,
ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE
7 v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
UNDER SEAL
8 GOOGLE LLC,
Re: Dkt. No. 398
9 Defendant.
10 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to file under seal materials associated
11 with a discovery dispute in this case. Dkt. 398; see also Dkt. 407.
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 7 en Court’s Ruling
ee ought to be on Motion to Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling
5 ealed Seal
Joint Letter Brief Re: GRANTED as to Narrowly tailored to protect
6 || Plaintiff's Request for an edacted portions at |Google’s confidential and
7 Additional Google pages 1-4 proprietary information regarding
Custodian (Dkt. 399) features of Google’s internal systems
g and operations, including details
related to internal projects,
9 identifiers, metrics, and logs, and
heir proprietary functionalities, that
10 Google maintains as confidential in
ul he ordinary course of its business
and is not generally known to the
= 2 public or Google’s competitors.
Such confidential and proprietary
13 information reveals Google’s
a internal strategies, and business
tices f ting and
practices for operating an
5 maintaining many of its services.
= Public disclosure of such
16 onfidential and proprietary
information could affect Google’s
= 17 ompetitive standing as competitors
may alter their systems and practices
18 relating to competing products. It
19 Imay also place Google at an
increased risk of cyber security
20 hreats, as third parties may seek to
se the information to compromise
21 Google’s internal practices.
22 SO ORDERED.
23 Dated: February 22, 2022
24
Susi veil
SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge
27
28