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-YGR (SVK)
8 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE
9 v. UNDER SEAL
10 GOOGLE LLC,
Re: Dkt. Nos. 653, 677, 698, 701
11 Defendant.
12
13 Before the Court are several administrative motions to file under seal materials associated
14 with discovery disputes in this case. Dkt. 653, 677, 698, 701; see also Dkt. 721, 726.
15 Courts recognize a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents,
16 including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d
17 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7
18 (1978)). A request to seal court records therefore starts with a “strong presumption in favor of
19 access.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d
20 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
21
seeking to seal court records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the
22
underlying cause of action” must demonstrate “compelling reasons” that support secrecy. Ctr. For
23
Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016). For records attached to
24
motions that re “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of the case,” the lower
25
“good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) applies. Id.; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. A party
26
moving to seal court records must also comply with the procedures established by Civil Local
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. 653
8
Document Court’s Ruling on Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling
9
Sought to be Motion to Seal
10 Sealed
March 17, 2022 GRANTED as to The information requested to be sealed contains
11 Hearing redacted portions at: Google’s confidential and proprietary information,
Transcript including details related to Google’s internal
12 systems, projects, identifiers, logs, and their
7:13, 7:16, 7:25, 8:1, proprietary functions, as well as internal metrics,
13 8:9, 8:25, 9:10, 9:15- that Google maintains as confidential in the
14 17, 10:1, 31:7, ordinary course of its business and is not generally
31:16, 32:10, 35:5, known to the public or Google’s competitors. Such
15 39:7, 39:12, 39:17, confidential and proprietary information reveals
39:21, 40:3, 40:7, Google’s internal strategies, system designs, and
16 40:13, 40:22, 40:24, business practices for operating and maintaining
41:3, 48:6, 61:24, many of its services. Public disclosure of such
17 62:16, 62:25, 64:23- confidential and proprietary information could
18 24 affect Google’s competitive standing as
competitors may alter their systems and practices
19 relating to competing products. It may also place
Google at an increased risk of cybersecurity
20 threats, as third parties may seek to use the
information to compromise Google’s internal
21
practices relating to competing products.
22
23 2. Dkt. 677
24
Document Court’s Ruling on Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling
25 Sought to be Motion to Seal
Sealed
26
27
Plaintiffs’ DENIED Plaintiffs seek to seal information on the grounds
1
Supplemental WITHOUT that Google has designated the information as
2 Administrative PREJUDICE as to confidential under the protective order in this case.
Request in redacted portions at: Google has not filed a declaration demonstrating
3 Response to Dkt. that the material is sealable, as required under
No. 674 1:27, 2:21-22, 2:23- Civil Local Rule 79-5(f). There is therefore no
4 25, 2:27-3:2, 3:5, basis upon which to seal the material that is the
3:9, 3:13-19, 3:22- subject of this motion. Accordingly, the motion at
5
24 Dkt. 677 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
6 Google must submit the declaration required under
Civil Local Rule 79-5(f) no later than June 28,
7 2022. Failure to submit the required declaration
may result in denial of this motion to seal.
8
9
3. Dkt. 698 (see also Dkt. 721)
10
11 Document Court’s Ruling on Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling
Sought to be Motion to Seal
12
Sealed
13 Exhibit A to GRANTED as to the Narrowly tailored to protect confidential technical
Plaintiffs’ highlighted portions information regarding sensitive features of
14 Statement (Plfs’ at: Google’s internal systems and operations,
4th 30(b)(6) including details related to internal projects, that
15 Notice) 6:1, 6:17, 6:19 Google maintains as confidential in the ordinary
16 course of its business and is not generally known
to the public or Google’s competitors.
17 Exhibit B to GRANTED as to the Narrowly tailored to protect confidential technical
Plaintiffs’ highlighted portions information regarding sensitive features of
18 Statement (re: at: Google’s internal systems and operations,
Deposition of Vic including details related to internal projects, that
19
Liu) Pages 1, 3 Google maintains as confidential in the ordinary
20 course of its business and is not generally known
to the public or Google’s competitors.
21
4. Dkt. 701 (see also Dkt. 726)
22
23 Document Court’s Ruling on Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling
Sought to be Motion to Seal
24 Sealed
25 Exhibit B to GRANTED as to the The information requested to be sealed contains
Notice of Errata portions at: Google’s confidential and proprietary information
26 re Plaintiffs’ regarding sensitive features of Google’s internal
Statement Pages 1-2 systems and operations, that Google maintains as
27 Pursuant to Court confidential in the ordinary course of its business
I Exhibit B proprietary information reveals Google’s internal
docketed at ECF strategies, system designs, and business practices
2 Nos. 698-5, 698- for operating and maintaining many of its services,
6, 699-2) and falls within the protected scope of the
3 Protective Order entered in this action. See Dkt. 61
at 2-3. Public disclosure of such confidential and
4 proprietary information could affect Google’s
competitive standing as competitors may alter
5 . . .
their systems and practices relating to competing
6 products. It may also place Google at an increased
risk of cybersecurity threats, as third parties may
7 seek to use the information to compromise
Google’s internal practices relating to competing
8 products.
9
10 SO ORDERED.
11 || Dated: June 21, 2022
12
14 SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge
15
16
= 17
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28