# Brown v. Google LLC

> District Court, N.D. California · August 9, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10072425

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** August 9, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10072425

## Opinion text

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 GRANTING
9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS FOR
LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL
10 GOOGLE LLC,
Re: Dkt. Nos. 641, 645, 649
11 Defendant.

12 Before the Court are administrative motions to file under seal materials associated with
13 discovery disputes in this case. Dkt. 641, 645, 649; see also Dkt. 673.
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. 641

8 Document Sought to be Court’s Ruling on Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling
Sealed Motion to Seal
9
Google LLC’s GRANTED as to the The information requested to be
10 Administrative Motion portions at: sealed contains Google’s
Updating the Court on its confidential and proprietary
11 Preservation Implementation Pages 1:16-24, 2:2-7, information regarding sensitive
Efforts and Seeking Relief 2:10-19 features of Google’s internal
12
from the July 30 Deadline systems and operations, including
13 Imposed by the July 15, various types of Google’s internal
2022 Preservation Order projects, data signals, and logs, and
14 (Dkt. 630) their proprietary functionalities,
that Google maintains as
15 confidential in the ordinary course
of its business and is not generally
16
known to the public or Google’s
17 competitors. Such confidential and
proprietary information reveals
18 Google’s internal strategies, system
designs, and business practices for
19 operating and maintaining many of
its services. Public disclosure of
20
such confidential and proprietary
21 information could affect Google’s
competitive standing as
22 competitors may alter their systems
and practices relating to competing
23 products. It may also place Google
at an increased risk of
24
cybersecurity threats, as third
25 parties may seek to use the
information to compromise
26 Google’s internal practices relating
to competing products.
27 Declaration of Benjamin GRANTED as to the The information requested to be
Administrative Motion confidential and proprietary
1
Pages 1:22, 1:26-27, 2:1- information regarding sensitive
2 6, 2:8, 2:10-24, 3:6-12, features of Google’s internal
3:15, 3:17 systems and operations, including
3 various types of Google’s internal
projects, data signals, and logs, and
4 their proprietary functionalities,
that Google maintains as
5
confidential in the ordinary course
6 of its business and is not generally
known to the public or Google’s
7 competitors. Such confidential and
proprietary information reveals
8 Google’s internal strategies, system
designs, and business practices for
9
operating and maintaining many of
10 its services. Public disclosure of
such confidential and proprietary
11 information could affect Google’s
competitive standing as
12 competitors may alter their systems
and practices relating to competing
13
products. It may also place Google
14 at an increased risk of
cybersecurity threats, as third
15 parties may seek to use the
information to compromise
16 Google’s internal practices relating
to competing products.
17

18
19 2. Dkt. 645

20 Document Sought to be Court’s Ruling on Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling
Sealed Motion to Seal
21 Google LLC’s Supplement GRANTED as to the The information requested to be
to Administrative Motion portions at: sealed contains Google’s
22
Updating the Court on its confidential and proprietary
23 Preservation Implementation Pages 2:2-17 information regarding sensitive
Efforts and Seeking Relief features of Google’s internal
24 from the July 30 Deadline systems and operations, including
Imposed by the July 15, various types of Google’s internal
25 2022 Preservation Order data signals and logs, and their
(Dkt. 630) proprietary functionalities, that
26
Google maintains as confidential in
27 the ordinary course of its business
and is not generally known to the
Such confidential and proprietary
1
information reveals Google’s
2 internal strategies, system designs,
and business practices for
3 operating and maintaining many of
its services. Public disclosure of
4 such confidential and proprietary
information could affect Google’s
5
competitive standing as
6 competitors may alter their systems
and practices relating to competing
7 products. It may also place Google
at an increased risk of
8 cybersecurity threats, as third
parties may seek to use the
9
information to compromise
10 Google’s internal practices relating
to competing products.
11

12
3. Dkt. 649; see also Dkt. 673
13

14 Document Sought to be Court’s Ruling on Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling
Sealed Motion to Seal
15
Plaintiffs’ Response to GRANTED as to the The information requested to be
16 Google’s Administrative portions at: sealed contains Google’s confidential
Motion Dkts. 642, 646 and proprietary information
17 Page 1:21, 1:23-27, 2:27, regarding sensitive features of
3:27 Google’s internal systems and
18 operations, including various types of
Google’s data signals and logs, and
19
their proprietary functionalities, that
20 Google maintains as confidential in
the ordinary course of its business
21 and is not generally known to the
public or Google’s competitors. Such
22 confidential and proprietary
information reveals Google’s internal
23
strategies, system designs, and
24 business practices for operating and
maintaining many of its services.
25 Public disclosure of such confidential
and proprietary information could
26 affect Google’s competitive standing
as competitors may alter their
27
systems and practices relating to
1 place Google at an increased risk of
cybersecurity threats, as third parties
2 may seek to use the information to
compromise Google’s internal
3 practices relating to competing
products.
4 Declaration of Mark Mao In GRANTED as to the The information requested to be
5 Support of Plaintiffs’ portions at: sealed contains Google’s confidential
Response to Google’s and proprietary information
6 ||| Administrative Motion (Dkt. | Pages 2:16, 2:20 regarding sensitive features of
642) Google’s internal systems and
7 operations, including various types of
Google’s data signals and logs, and
8 their proprietary functionalities, that
9 Google maintains as confidential in
the ordinary course of its business
10 and is not generally known to the
public or Google’s competitors. Such
11 confidential and proprietary
information reveals Google’s internal
12 strategies, system designs, and
s 13 business practices for operating and
maintaining many of its services.
14 Public disclosure of such confidential
and proprietary information could
15 affect Google’s competitive standing
2 as competitors may alter their
a 16 systems and practices relating to
17 competing products. It may also
. .
place Google at an increased risk of
18 cybersecurity threats, as third parties
may seek to use the information to
19 compromise Google’s internal
practices relating to competing
20 products.
21 SO ORDERED.
22 Dated: August 9, 2022
23
24 Sesto
25 SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10072425. Public record. Not legal advice.