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 DEFENDANTS'
9 v. FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO SEAL
10 GOOGLE LLC, et al.,
[Re: ECF No. 384]
11 Defendants.
12
13 Before the Court is Google’s Further Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. See Mot.,
14 ECF No. 384. The motion requests to seal portions of one of Google’s expert’s reports. See Mot.
15 at 1-2. The Court previously denied Google’s request to seal the report because the request was
16 not narrowly tailored. See ECF No. 383, at 6:16-21. For the reasons stated below, Google’s
17 further motion to seal is GRANTED.
18 I. LEGAL STANDARD
19 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records
20 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. Of
21 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435
22 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are
23 “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of
24 “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. For Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092,
25 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed
26 upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. In addition, in this district, all parties
27 requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5. That rule requires that the moving
1 the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if
2 sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R.
3 79-5(c)(1)(i). The rule also requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from
4 declarations where necessary.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1)(ii).
5 II. DISCUSSION
6 This Court previously determined “that the compelling reasons standard applies to motions
7 to seal documents relating to class certification.” Adtrader, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 17-CV07082-
8 BLF, 2020 WL 6391210, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2020). Google seeks to seal portions of its
9 expert Fernando Torres’s Reply Report to the Expert Report of Jesse David PhD. Mot. at 2.
10 Google submitted the expert report with its briefing on Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
11 Id. at 1-2. Accordingly, Google must demonstrate that compelling reasons exist to seal the
12 portions of the document it seeks to seal.
13 Google argues that compelling reasons support its request to seal. Google declares that the
14 portions of the report it seeks to seal contain confidential and highly sensitive proprietary and
15 commercial information about the details of Google’s understanding of the profits or losses
16 associated with Google Assistant. Crowel Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 384-1. Google further declares that
17 public disclosure of the information would result in significant competitive harm to Google by
18 giving third parties insight into sensitive aspects of Google’s development of Google Assistant and
19 the financial implications of that development. Id. Courts in this district have routinely found
20 compelling reasons to seal such information. See, e.g., Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc.,
21 No. 17- CV-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts
22 have found “confidential business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under
23 the compelling reasons standard); Brown v. Brown, No. CV 13-03318 SI, 2013 WL 12400041, at
24 *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2013) (finding compelling reasons to seal information about “profits,
25 losses, income, investments, and expenses” when disclosure would harm party’s competitive
26 standing). The Court agrees that such information is sealable and finds that Google has narrowly
27 tailored its request to seal such information. The Court therefore GRANTS Google’s motion to
1 ECF No. Document Requested Portions
to Seal
2 384-2 Reply Report to the Highlighted portions | GRANTED, as
Expert Report of of pages 13-14 confidential and
3 Jesse David PhD by highly sensitive
Fernando Torres proprietary and
4 commercial
5 information about
details of Google’s
6 understanding of the
profits or losses
7 associated with
Google Assistant.
9 Il. ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Google’s motion to seal is
10
GRANTED. No further action is necessary, as Google has submitted a public redacted version of
11
the document at ECF No. 384-3.
12
13
Dated: April 3, 2023
aaien
©
15 BETH LABSON FREEMAN
2 United States District Judge
Q 16
= 17
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28