The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------x
IN RE GOOGLE DIGITAL ADVERTISING
ANTITRUST LITIGATION 21-md-3010 (PKC)
-----------------------------------------------------------
THIS ORDER RELATES TO:
THE STATE OF TEXAS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
21-cv-6841 (PKC)
-against- ORDER
GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant.
-----------------------------------------------------------x
CASTEL, District Judge:
An Order of October 15, 2021 granted in part and denied in part the motion of
Google LLC (“Google”) to redact from public view portions of the Second Amended Complaint.
(Docket # 147.) The Court held that privacy interests outweighed the presumption of public
access to the names, job titles and e-mail addresses of certain Google employees identified in the
Second Amended Complaint, as well as details about the engineering of Google’s “predictive
modeling” process. See generally Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir.
2006). The sealing motion was otherwise denied.
On November 12, 2021, the plaintiff states filed a Third Amended Complaint.
(Docket # 176.) As publicly filed, the Third Amended Complaint extensively redacts allegations
about Google’s advertising business. Plaintiffs explain in an accompanying sealing motion that
the redactions were made “[o]ut of an abundance of caution” and include “more redactions than
the Plaintiff States believe are necessary . . . .” (Docket # 174 at 2.)
In its response, Google proposes only modest redactions that are consistent with
the Order of October 15. (Docket # 181 & Amini Dec. Ex. A.) Specifically, Google proposes to
redact only the names, job titles and e-mail addresses of certain Google employees quoted in the
Third Amended Complaint. (Third Am. Compl’t ¶¶ 114, 115, 157, 251, 352, 364, 371, 385, 397,
415.) It also proposes to redact one sentence in paragraph 400 that purports to describe the
competitive effects of a Google ad-buying tool geared toward large advertisers.
No party or non-party now urges that the broad redactions initially proposed by
plaintiffs ought to be maintained.1 Further, Google notes that it was not advised of plaintiffs’
proposed redactions prior to the filing of the Third Amended Complaint and implies that in light
of the October 15 Order, it would not have proposed such extensive redactions. (Google
Response at 1-2, 2 n.2.)
For the reasons explained in the Order of October 15, 2021, the privacy interests
implicated in the names, job titles and contact information of certain Google employees
outweighs the presumption of public access, and the sealing motion will be granted as to those
allegations.
Google’s proposed redaction in paragraph 400 relates to the operations of a
Google ad-buying tool. The state plaintiffs urge that the sentence merely summarizes prior
allegations, does not convey confidential information and ought not be redacted. The proposed
redaction does not convey technical or proprietary information and purports to identify an anti-
1 The private plaintiffs filed a letter-brief contending that paragraph 381 should not be redacted or sealed and should
be available for public review. (Docket # 178.) Google does not seek to maintain the redaction to paragraph 381.
(Docket # 181 at 6 n.4.)
competitive effect of a Google ad-buying tool. Google has not demonstrated a privacy interest
that outweighs the presumption of public access and therefore the sealing application will be
denied as to the proposed redaction in paragraph 400.
CONCLUSION.
The motion to seal the Third Amended Complaint is GRANTED as to the
employee names, job titles and contact information identified in paragraphs 114, 115, 157, 251,
352, 364, 371, 385, 397 and 415 but is otherwise DENIED. The Clerk is directed to terminate
the motion. (21 MD 3010 Docket # 174; 21 Civ. 6841 Docket # 164.) Plaintiffs are directed to
publicly file a version of the Third Amended Complaint that conforms to this Order no later than
January 14, 2022.
SO ORDERED.
LA Fepoen
LZ Pepe Pl
United States District Judge
Dated: New York, New York
January 12, 2022