Opinion

Rumble Canada, Inc. v. Google LLC

Court
District Court, N.D. California
Filed
Aug 6, 2024
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 31.3%

The opinion

1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5 SAN JOSE DIVISION

6

7 RUMBLE CANADA, INC., Case No. 24-cv-02880-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE

9 v. UNDER SEAL EXHIBIT TO

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

10 GOOGLE LLC, et al., COMPLAINT

11 Defendants. [Re: ECF 18]

12

13 Defendants have filed an administrative motion to seal material in the Network Bidding

14 Agreement (“NBA”) filed as an exhibit in support of Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.

15 See Admin. Mot. to File Under Seal, ECF 18. Specifically, Defendants seek leave to redact the

16 names and titles of non-party employees of Google and Facebook. See id. Plaintiff has stipulated

17 to the sealing of the non-party employees’ names and titles. See Joint Stipulation, ECF 18-4.

18 The NBA was filed as an exhibit to Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, a motion

19 going to the merits of Plaintiff’s claims. For that reason, the Court finds that the NBA is “more

20 than tangentially related to the merits of a case,” triggering application of the “compelling

21 reasons” standard rather than the lesser “good cause” standard. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v.

22 Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02, 1097 (9th Cir. 2006). “Courts in this District

23 routinely find compelling reasons to seal personally-identifying information that has minimal

24 relevance to the underlying causes of action.” Stiner v. Brookdale Senior Living, Inc., No. 17-CV-

25 03962-HSG, 2022 WL 1180216, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2022). The Court finds that the names

26 and titles of non-party employees have minimal relevance to the underlying claims, and that those

27 employees’ privacy interests satisfy the compelling reasons standard here. Defendants’ sealing

1 employees, which amount to only a handful of words in the 48-page NBA. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(a)

2 || (requiring that sealing motions be narrowly tailored).

3 Accordingly, Defendants’ sealing motion is GRANTED as to the names and job titles of

4 || non-party employees highlighted in yellow at page 8, Section 1.61, Table 1 of the NBA submitted

5 with the sealing motion, and at p. 31 of the NBA submitted with the sealing motion.

6 IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

8 Dated: August 6, 2024

°

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

10 United States District Judge

11

a 12

15

16

it

Z 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.