# Hubbard v. Google LLC

> District Court, N.D. California · August 5, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10639068

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** August 5, 2024
- **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/10639068

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10639068. Public record. Not legal advice.