# In re Google Assistant Privacy Litigation > District Court, N.D. California · April 3, 2023 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10074822 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, N.D. California - **Decided:** April 3, 2023 - **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/10074822 ## Opinion text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10074822. Public record. Not legal advice.