Opinion

In re Google Assistant Privacy Litigation

Court
District Court, N.D. California
Filed
Feb 22, 2023
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 18.9%

The opinion

1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5 SAN JOSE DIVISION

6

7 ASIF KUMANDAN, et al., Case No. 19-cv-04286-BLF

8 Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

9 v. DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO

SEAL

10 GOOGLE LLC, et al.,

[Re: ECF Nos. 304, 345 358, 369]

11 Defendants.

12

13

14

15 Before the Court are several motions to seal materials submitted with the parties’ briefing

16 on Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. See ECF Nos. 304, 345 358. The parties also

17 submitted a request to seal portions of the Court’s order on Plaintiffs’ motion for class

18 certification. See ECF No. 369. For the reasons stated below, the motion at ECF No. 304 is

19 GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART without prejudice and the motions at ECF Nos.

20 345, 358, and 369 are GRANTED.

21 I. LEGAL STANDARD

22 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records

23 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. Of

24 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435

25 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are

26 “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of

27 “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. For Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092,

1 upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097.

2 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local

3 Rule 79-5. That rule requires that the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a

4 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that

5 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive

6 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5©(1)(i). The rule also requires the moving

7 party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” Civ. L.R. 79-5©(1)(ii).

8 II. DISCUSSION

9 This Court previously determined “that the compelling reasons standard applies to motions

10 to seal documents relating to class certification.” Adtrader, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 17-CV-

11 07082-BLF, 2020 WL 6391210, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2020).

12 A. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal and to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material

Should be Sealed (ECF No. 304)

13

Plaintiffs submitted a motion to seal materials submitted with their Reply Brief in Support

14

of Motion for Class Certification (“Reply”). See ECF No. 304. The motion requests to seal

15

materials that both Plaintiffs and Google have designated confidential. Google submitted a

16

statement in support. ECF No. 307.

17

1. Plaintiffs’ Requests

18

Plaintiffs request to seal two documents: (1) a document that is Bates stamped

19

SPURR000023 and (2) excerpts of the deposition of plaintiff Lourdes Galvan, dated August 4,

20

2022. See ECF No. 304 ¶¶ 6-7. Plaintiffs request is not narrowly tailored. However, Plaintiffs

21

submitted a more narrowly tailored request regarding these documents at ECF Nos. 358-1 and

22

358-6. As discussed below, in § II.C, the Court is granting that more narrowly tailored request.

23

The Court therefore grants Plaintiffs’ request in part. Specifically, the Court GRANTS to the

24

extent it is limited to the narrowly tailored redactions submitted at ECF Nos. 358-1 and 358-6.

25

2. Google’s Requests

26

Google declares that the materials it seeks to seal contain “confidential and highly sensitive

27

proprietary and commercial information about (1) the operation of Google Assistant; (2)

1 competitively sensitive business opportunities and risks; and (3) details of Google’s understanding

2 of the profits or losses associated with Google Assistant.” Crowel Decl. Supp. Admin. Mot. to

3 Consider Whether Defs.’ Material Should be Sealed ¶ 5, ECF No. 307-1. Google further declares

4 that disclosure of the information would cause Google competitive harm by giving competitors

5 insight into the development and operation of Google Assistant. Id.

6 Courts in this district have found that compelling reasons exist to seal the information

7 Google requests to seal. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL

8 7911651, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant’s] products”

9 sealable under “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-

10 CV-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found

11 “confidential business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the

12 compelling reasons standard.); Brown v. Brown, No. CV 13-03318 SI, 2013 WL 12400041, at *1

13 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2013) (finding compelling reasons to seal information about “profits, losses,

14 income, investments, and expenses” when disclosure would harm party’s competitive standing).

15 The Court agrees that such information is sealable and finds that Google has mostly narrowly

16 tailored its request to such information. There are some instances in which Google has not

17 narrowly tailored its requests, however. The Court therefore GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN

18 PART Google’s request to seal. The Court has set forth its rulings on specific documents in the

19 table below.

20 * * *

21

ECF No. Document Requested Ruling

22

Portions to

23 Seal

304-3 Plaintiffs’ Reply to Highlighted GRANTED, as confidential and

24 Google’s Motion for portions on highly sensitive proprietary and

Class Certification pages 2-6, 12- commercial information about

25 13 (1) the operation of Google

[Public redacted version Assistant; (2) business

26

at ECF No. 303] opportunities and risks; and (3)

27 details of Google’s understanding

of the profits or losses associated

1

No further action necessary, as a

2 public redacted version of this

document is filed at 303.

3 304-4 Excerpts of deposition Entirety GRANTED. Sealed under this

transcript of Terry Tai, Court’s Order at ECF No. 282, at

4 dated June 30, 2020 7:28-8:3. Excerpt contains

confidential and highly sensitive

5

proprietary and commercial

6 information about the operation

of Google Assistant.

7

No further action necessary.

8 304-5 SPURR00023-28 Entirety GRANTED IN PART. The

Court grants the request to the

9

extent it is limited to the

10 redactions proposed in ECF No.

358-1.

11

No further action necessary, as

12

this order directs Plaintiffs to file

a public redacted version of ECF

13

No. 358-1.

14 304-6 GOOG-ASST-03034181 Entirety GRANTED. Sealed under this

Court’s order at ECF No. 282, at

15 7:28-8:3. Contains confidential

and highly sensitive proprietary

16

and commercial information

17 about the operation of Google

Assistant.

18

No further action necessary.

19 304-7 GOOG-ASST-00221071 Entirety GRANTED, as confidential and

highly sensitive proprietary

20

information about the operation

21 of Google Assistant.

22 No further action necessary.

304-8 GOOG-ASST-03026521 Entirety GRANTED. Sealed under this

23 Court’s order at ECF No. 282, at

7:21-24. Contains confidential

24

and highly sensitive proprietary

25 and commercial information

about the operation of Google

26 Assistant.

27

No further action necessary.

highly sensitive proprietary

1

information about the operation

2 of Google Assistant.

3 No further action necessary.

304-10 GOOG-ASST-00238568 Entirety GRANTED, as confidential and

4 highly sensitive proprietary

information about the operation

5

of Google Assistant.

6

No further action necessary.

7 304-11 GOOG-ASST-00213485 Entirety GRANTED, as confidential and

highly sensitive proprietary

8 information about the operation

of Google Assistant.

9

10 No further action necessary.

304-12 Excerpts of deposition of Entirety GRANTED IN PART. The Court

11 Lourdes Galvan, dated GRANTS the request to the

August 4, 2022 extent it is limited to the

12

redactions proposed in ECF No.

13 358-6.

14 No further action necessary, as

this order directs Plaintiffs to file

15 a public redacted version of ECF

No. 358-6.

16

304-13 Declaration of F. Torres Highlighted GRANTED. Sealed under this

17 in Support of Plaintiffs’ portion on Court’s Order at ECF No. 282, at

Motion for Class pages 9-10, 15, 11:8-3 Highlighted portions

18 Certification 20-21, 26, 30- reflect confidential and highly

36 sensitive proprietary and

19 commercial information about

(1) the operation of Google

20

Assistant and (2) details of

21 Google’s understanding of the

profits or losses associated with

22 Google Assistant.

23 No further action necessary, as a

public redacted version is filed at

24

303-30.

25 304-14 Excerpts of deposition of Entirety GRANTED, as confidential and

Fernando Torres, dated highly sensitive proprietary

26 September 7, 2022 information about details of

Google’s understanding of the

27

profits or losses associated with

1

No further action necessary.

2 304-15 Excerpts of deposition of Entirety GRANTED, as confidential and

Hailey Crowel, dated July highly sensitive proprietary

3 21, 2022 information about details of

Google’s understanding of the

4 profits or losses associated with

Google Assistant.

5

6 No further action necessary.

304-16 GOOG-ASST-03045589 Entirety GRANTED, as confidential and

7 highly sensitive proprietary

information about details of

8 Google’s understanding of the

profits or losses associated with

9

Google Assistant.

10

No further action necessary.

11 304-17 GOOG-ASST03045632 Entirety GRANTED. Sealed under this

Court’s order at ECF No. 282,

12

6:4-7. Contains confidential and

13 highly sensitive proprietary and

commercial information about

14 the profits or losses of Google

Assistant.

15

No further action necessary.

16

304-18 Reply Report to the Entirety DENIED without prejudice, as

17 Expert Report of Jesse the request is not narrowly

David PhD by Fernando tailored.

18 Torres

Google shall file either a further

19 motion to seal this document

with more narrowly tailored

20

redactions or a public unredacted

21 version of this document by no

later than March 3, 2023.

22 304-19 GOOG-ASST-03026959 Entirety GRANTED. Sealed under this

Court’s order at ECF No. 318, at

23 3:22-26. Contains confidential

and highly sensitive proprietary

24

and commercial information

25 about the operation of Google

Assistant.

26

No further action necessary.

27

304-20 GOOG-ASST-03029199 Entirety GRANTED. Sealed under this

3:27-4:3. Contains confidential

1

and highly sensitive proprietary

2 and commercial information

about the operation of Google

3 Assistant.

4 No further action necessary.

304-21 GOOG-ASST-03029199 Entirety GRANTED. Sealed under this

5

Court’s order at ECF No. 318, at

6 4:4-9. Contains confidential and

highly sensitive proprietary and

7 commercial information about

the operation of Google

8 Assistant.

9

No further action necessary.

10 304-22 Expert Reply Report of Entirety DENIED without prejudice.

Rebecca Reed-Arthurs Plaintiffs move to seal based on

11 Ph.D. purported inclusion of material

Google designated highly

12

confidential, but Google does not

request to seal any portion of this

13

document.

14

Google shall file either a further

15 motion to seal this document

with narrowly tailored redactions

16

or a public unredacted version of

17 this document by no later than

March 3, 2023.

18 304-23 Opening Expert Report of Entirety GRANTED. Sealed under this

Rebecca Reed-Arthurs, Court’s order at ECF No. 282, at

19 Ph.D. 11:14-20. Document reflects

confidential and highly sensitive

20

proprietary and commercial

21 information about (1) the

operation of Google Assistant (2)

22 business opportunities and risks;

and (3) details of Google’s

23 understanding of the profits or

losses associated with Google

24

Assistant.

25

No further action necessary.

26

B. Google’s Further Administrative Motion to Seal (ECF No. 345)

27

On October 17, 2022, the Court denied in part without prejudice Google’s request to seal

1 certain documents submitted with its opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification

2 because some of the requests were not narrowly tailored. See ECF No. 318. Google submitted a

3 further administrative motion to seal portions of these documents. See ECF No. 345. The Court

4 now considers this request.

5 Google seeks to seal portions of deposition transcripts. Google’s request is now narrowly

6 tailored to seal only the portions of these transcripts containing confidential and highly sensitive

7 proprietary and commercial information about (1) the operation of Google Assistant; (2)

8 competitively sensitive business opportunities and risks; and (3) details of Google’s understanding

9 of the profits or losses associated with Google Assistant. See Decl. of Hailey Crowel Supp. Defs.’

10 Further Admin. Mot to File Under Seal ¶ 5, ECF No. 345-1. And Google has explained how

11 disclosure of the information would cause Google competitive harm. See id. Courts in this

12 district have found that compelling reasons exist to seal such information. See Finjan, 2016 WL

13 7911651, at *1 (finding “technical operation of [defendant’s] products” sealable under

14 “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis, 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (“Courts have found that

15 confidential business information in the form of . . . business strategies satisfies the compelling

16 reasons standard.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Brown, 2013 WL 12400041, at *1 (finding

17 compelling reasons to seal information about “profits, losses, income, investments, and expenses”

18 when disclosure would harm party’s competitive standing).

19 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Google’s motion to seal at ECF No. 345 as set forth in

20 the following table.

21

ECF No. Document Requested Ruling

22

Portions to

23 Seal

345-3 Excerpts of Transcript of Highlighted GRANTED, as confidential and

24 Deposition of Francoise Portions highly sensitive proprietary and

Beaufays, dated April 12, commercial information about

25 2022 the operation of Google

Assistant.

26

27 Google SHALL file a public

redacted version of this document

345-4 Excerpts of Transcript of Highlighted GRANTED, as confidential and

1

Deposition of Francoise Portions highly sensitive proprietary and

2 Beaufays, dated April 22, commercial information about

2022 the operation of Google

3 Assistant.

4 Google SHALL file a public

redacted version of this document

5

by no later than March 3, 2023.

6 345-5 Excerpts of Transcript of Highlighted GRANTED, as confidential and

Deposition of Yair Portions highly sensitive proprietary and

7 Cohen, dated July 15, commercial information about

2022 (1) the operation of Google

8 Assistant and (2) business

opportunities and risks.

9

10 Google SHALL file a public

redacted version of this document

11 by no later than March 3, 2023.

345-6 Excerpts of Transcript of Highlighted GRANTED, as confidential and

12

Deposition of Alex Portions highly sensitive proprietary and

Gruenstein, dated May commercial information about

13

24, 2022 the operation of Google

14 Assistant.

15 Google SHALL file a public

redacted version of this document

16

by no later than March 3, 2023.

17 345-7 Excerpts of Transcript of Highlighted GRANTED, as confidential and

Deposition of Hailey Portions highly sensitive proprietary and

18 Crowel, dated July 21, commercial information about

2022 (1) business opportunities and

19 risks and (2) details of Google’s

understanding of the profits or

20

losses associated with Google

21 Assistant.

22 Google SHALL file a public

redacted version of this document

23 by no later than March 3, 2023.

345-8 Excerpts of Transcript of Highlighted GRANTED, as confidential and

24

Deposition of Hailey Portions highly sensitive proprietary and

25 Crowel, dated August 10, commercial information about

2022 (1) business opportunities and

26 risks and (2) details of Google’s

understanding of the profits or

27 losses associated with Google

1

Google SHALL file a public

2 redacted version of this document

by no later than March 3, 2023.

3 345-9 Excerpts of Transcript of Highlighted GRANTED, as confidential and

Deposition of Brian Portions highly sensitive proprietary and

4 Horling, dated June 13, commercial information about

2022 (1) the operation of Google

5

Assistant and (2) business

6 opportunities and risks.

7 Google SHALL file a public

redacted version of this document

8 by no later than March 3, 2023.

345-10 Excerpts of Transcript of Highlighted GRANTED, as confidential and

9

Deposition of Caroline Portions highly sensitive proprietary and

10 Kenny, dated April 14, commercial information about

2022 the operation of Google

11 Assistant.

12

Google SHALL file a public

redacted version of this document

13

by no later than March 3, 2023.

14 345-11 Excerpts of Transcript of Highlighted GRANTED, as confidential and

Deposition of Ashwin Portions highly sensitive proprietary and

15 Sunder, dated May 13, commercial information about

2022 (1) the operation of Google

16

Assistant and (2) business

17 opportunities and risks.

18 Google SHALL file a public

redacted version of this document

19 by no later than March 3, 2023.

345-12 Excerpts of Transcript of Highlighted GRANTED, as confidential and

20

Deposition of Terry Tai, Portions highly sensitive proprietary and

21 dated June 22, 2022 commercial information about

the operation of Google

22 Assistant.

23 Google SHALL file a public

redacted version of this document

24

by no later than March 3, 2023.

25

C. Plaintiffs’ Renewed Request to Seal Documents Submitted with Google’s

26 Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (ECF No. 358)

On November 17, 2022, the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiffs’ request to seal

27

1 because the request was not narrowly tailored. See ECF No. 356. Plaintiffs subsequently

2 submitted a renewed request that is more narrowly tailored. See ECF No. 358. The Court now

3 considers this renewed request.

4 Plaintiffs request to seal portions of documents produced in the litigation and interrogatory

5 responses. The portions of the documents Plaintiffs seek to seal include email addresses, home

6 addresses, device identification numbers, and other similar information. Courts in this district

7 have found that compelling reasons exist to seal such material. See Nursing Home Pension Fund

8 v. Oracle Corp., No. C01-00988 MJJ, 2007 WL 3232267, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2007) (home

9 address and financial account information); O’Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. C-13-3826 EMC,

10 2015 WL 355496, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2015) (email address); Darisse v. Nest Labs, Inc., No.

11 14-CV-01363-BLF, 2016 WL 11474174 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2016) (device serial number). The

12 Court agrees that such material is sealable under the compelling reasons standard and finds that

13 Plaintiffs have now narrowly tailored their request. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’

14 request to seal at ECF No. 358, as set forth in the following table.

15 The Court notes that its order at ECF No. 356 had also denied without prejudice Plaintiffs’

16 request to seal portions of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification

17 (“Opposition”). See ECF No. 356, at 3:10-13. Plaintiffs did not seek to seal any portions of the

18 Opposition in their renewed request. The Court interprets this omission to mean that Plaintiffs no

19 longer seek to seal portions of the Opposition. The Court previously granted Google’s request to

20 seal portions of this document but instructed Google not to file a public redacted version until after

21 Plaintiffs had the opportunity to propose their own redactions. See ECF No. 318, at 14:3-7. The

22 Court therefore DIRECTS Google to file a public redacted version of the Opposition with the

23 redactions permitted in the Court’s order at ECF No. 318.1

24

ECF No. Document Requested Ruling

25

Portions to

26 Seal

358-1 SPURR000023 Highlighted GRANTED, as sensitive

27

Portions personally identifying

1

information.

2

Plaintiffs SHALL file a public

3 redacted version of this document

by no later than March 3, 2023.

4 358-2 STEVE-SPURR000347 Highlighted GRANTED, as sensitive

Portions personally identifying

5

(Exhibit 64 to the information.

6 Declaration of Sunita Bali

in support of Defendants’ Plaintiffs SHALL file a public

7 Opposition to Plaintiffs’ redacted version of this document

Motion for Class by no later than March 3, 2023.

8 Certification)

358-3 STEVE-SPURR000733 Highlighted GRANTED, as sensitive

9

Portions personally identifying

10 information.

11 Plaintiffs SHALL file a public

redacted version of this document

12

by no later than March 3, 2023.

13 358-4 Excerpts of Transcript of Highlighted GRANTED, as sensitive

Deposition of Frank Portions personally identifying

14 Aguiar, dated September information.

5, 2022

15 Plaintiffs SHALL file a public

redacted version of this document

16

by no later than March 3, 2023.

17 358-5 Excerpts of Transcript of Highlighted GRANTED, as sensitive

Deposition of Eleeanna Portions personally identifying

18 Galvan, dated August 5, information.

2022

19 Plaintiffs SHALL file a public

redacted version of this document

20

by no later than March 3, 2023.

21 358-6 Excerpts of Transcript of Highlighted GRANTED, as sensitive

Deposition of Lourdes Portions personally identifying

22 Galvan, dated August 4, information.

2022

23 Plaintiffs SHALL file a public

redacted version of this document

24

by no later than March 3, 2023.

25 358-7 Excerpts of Transcript of Highlighted GRANTED, as sensitive

Deposition of Melissa Portions personally identifying

26 Spurr, dated August 15, information.

2022

27

Plaintiffs SHALL file a public

by no later than March 3, 2023.

1

358-8 Excerpts of Transcript of Highlighted GRANTED, as sensitive

2 Deposition of Steven Portions personally identifying

Spurr, dated September 6, information.

3 2022

Plaintiffs SHALL file a public

4 redacted version of this document

by no later than March 3, 2023.

5

6 D. Joint Motion to Seal Portions of Order on Class Certification (ECF No. 369)

7 The parties submitted a Joint Request in Support of Proposed Redactions to Class

8 Certification Order. ECF No. 369. Each party requests to seal certain portions of the Court’s

9 order on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. The Court addresses each party’s request in

10 turn.

11 Plaintiffs request to seal Plaintiff Melissa Spurr’s personal email address. The Court finds

12 compelling reasons exist to seal this email address, as it is not relevant to the litigation and the

13 public has no real interest in its disclosure. See, e.g., O’Connor, 2015 WL 355496, at *3 (N.D.

14 Cal. Jan. 27, 2015).

15 Google requests to seal certain excerpts of Class Certification Order that contain technical

16 information about the operation of Google Assistant. The Court finds that Google has met the

17 compelling reasons standard for sealing this technical information because release of the

18 information would threaten Google’s competitive interests. See In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F.

19 App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (ordering sealing where documents could be used “‘as sources of

20 business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing’”) (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S.

21 at 598); see also In re Koninklijke Philips Pat. Litig., No. 18-CV-01885-HSG, 2020 WL 1865294

22 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2020) (compelling reasons exist to seal information concerning “technical

23 product operation”).

24 The Court hereby GRANTS the parties’ joint motion, as the parties have demonstrated

25 compelling reasons to seal the portions of the order they respectively request to seal. A public

26 redacted version of the order has already been filed at ECF No. 369-2. No further action is

27 necessary.

1 /

2 || I. ORDER

3 For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

4 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal and to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should be

5 Sealed at ECF No. 304 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Google shall file

6 either a further motion to seal or public unredacted versions of ECF Nos. 304-18 & 304-22

7 consistent with the Court’s direction in the table in § ILA of this order by no later than

8 March 3, 2023.

9 2. Google’s Administrative Motion to Seal at ECF No. 345 is GRANTED. Google shall file

10 public redacted versions of the exhibits consistent with the Court’s direction in the table

11 § IIB of this order by no later than March 3, 2023.

12 3. Plaintiffs’ renewed request to seal at ECF No. 358 is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall file

5 13 public redacted version of the exhibits consistent with the Court’s direction in the table in

14 § ILC of this order by no later than March 3, 2023.

3 15 4. The parties’ Joint Motion to Seal Portions of Order on Class Certification at ECF No. 369

a 16 is GRANTED.

3 17 5. Google SHALL file a public redacted version of the Opposition, which Google submitted

18 with proposed redactions at ECF No. 271-2, with the redactions permitted in the Court’s

19 order at ECF No. 318.

20

21 Dated: February 22, 2023

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

23 United States District Judge

24

25

26

27

28

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.