The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 CHASOM BROWN, et al., Case No. 20-cv-03664-YGR (SVK)
8 Plaintiffs,
ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE
9 v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
UNDER SEAL
10 GOOGLE LLC,
Re: Dkt. No. 612
11 Defendant.
12 Before the Court is an administrative motion to file under seal materials associated with
13 discovery disputes in this case. Dkt. 612.
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 a discovery-related motion, rather than a motion
3 || that 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 motion
5 to seal, supporting declaration, and the pleadings on file, and good cause appearing, the Court
6 || ORDERS as follows:
7 1. 612
8 Document Sought | Court’s Ruling on Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling
9 to be Sealed Motion to Seal
Google LLC’s | GRANTED as to | The information requested to be sealed contains
10 Submission In | the portions at: Google’s confidential and proprietary information
Response To Dkt. regarding sensitive features of Google’s internal
11 604 Pages: 1:15-16, systems and operations, including details related to
D 1:19-2:3, 2:5, Google’s databases, logs, and encryption practices,
2:10-13, 2:21-23, | and their proprietary functionalities, that Google
13 2:25-26, 2:28 maintains as confidential in the ordinary course of
its business and is not generally known to the public
v 14 or Google’s competitors. Such confidential and
proprietary information reveals Google’s internal
15 strategies, system designs, and business practices
5 16 for operating and maintaining many of its services.
Public disclosure of such confidential and
3 17 proprietary information could affect Google’s
competitive standing as competitors may alter their
Z 18 systems and practices relating to competing
products. It may also place Google at an increased
19 risk of cybersecurity threats, as third parties may
20 seek to use the information to compromise Google’s
internal practices relating to competing products.
71 SO ORDERED.
22 Dated: July 15, 2022
23
Sess □□□
25 SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge
26
27
28