Opinion

Hubbard v. Google LLC

Court
District Court, N.D. California
Filed
Aug 5, 2024
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

1

2

3

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7 NICHOLE HUBBARD, et al., Case No. 19-cv-07016-SVK

8 Plaintiffs,

ORDER SEALING

9 v. SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

10 GOOGLE LLC, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 287

11 Defendants.

12 Plaintiffs recently filed their sixth amended complaint and a redline against their prior

13 operative complaint. See Dkts. 286 (the “SAC”), 286-1. They redacted portions of those filings

14 that disclose information which Defendants Google LLC and YouTube, LLC (collectively,

15 “Google”) have designated as confidential under the protective order in this action, and they move

16 for the Court to consider the propriety of those redactions. See Dkt. 287. Google filed a response,

17 arguing in favor of maintaining very limited portions of Plaintiffs’ redactions. See Dkt. 290.

18 Specifically, Google requests that the Court seal the following information encompassed by the

19 redactions: (1) the identities of Google customers; (2) the identity of a Google employee; and (3)

20 the identity of an employee of a Google customer.

21 “The public has a right of access to the Court’s files.” Civil Local Rule 79-5(a). To

22 overcome that right in connection with seeking to seal portions of a complaint, a party must

23 provide “compelling reasons” justifying the request. See, e.g., DeMartini v. Microsoft Corp., No.

24 22-cv-08991-JSC, 2023 WL 4205770, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2023).

25 Google seeks to seal the identities of its customers to preserve its competitive standing.

26 That satisfies the compelling-reasons standard. See, e.g., Apex.AI, Inc. v. Langmead, No. 23-cv-

27 02230-BLF, 2023 WL 4157629, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2023); True Health Chiropractic Inc.

] Compelling reasons also exist to seal the names of the two employees identified in the SAC; they

2 || arenon-parties to this action, and their names are irrelevant to the Parties’ claims and defenses.

3 See, e.g., Oracle Partners, L.P. v. Concentric Analgesics, Inc., No. 20-cv-03775-HSG, 2021 WL

4 1022874, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2021); Am. Auto. Ass’n of N. Cal., Nev. & Utah v. Gen. Motors

5 || LLC, No. 17-cv-03874-LHK, 2019 WL 1206748, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2019).

6 Accordingly, the Court SEALS the following information in the SAC and SAC redline:

7 Paragraphs Of Information To Be Redacted

Dkts. 286, 286-1

8 258-260; 262-264; 268-269 Identities of Google customers

Identity of Google employee

9 Identities of Google customer and that customer’s employee

10 || By August 12, 2024, Plaintiffs shall publicly file copies of the SAC and SAC redline with

11 redactions of only the above-identified information. The unredacted copies of these documents at

12 || Dkts. 287-3 and 287-4 shall remain under seal.

13 SO ORDERED.

14 || Dated: August 5, 2024

16 — Sess pot

5 17 SUSAN VAN KEULEN

United States Magistrate Judge

18

19

20

21

22

23

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.