Rowe v. Google LLC

A U L The Clerk of Court is directed to maintain ECF No. 406 under seal and terminate E

me

SO ORDERED.

1(212) 318-6046

kennethgage@paulhastings.com YeorR foarden

1(212) 318-6267 nniferH. Rearden, U.S.D.J.

saratomezsko@pauhastings.com ated: April 16, 2025

April 15, 2025 nae apne

DOCUMENT

VIA ECF ELECTRONICALLY FILED

Hon. Jennifer H. Rearden

U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y. DOC "\—___reroqs—

500 Pearl Street DATE FILED:

New York, NY 10007

Re: Rowe v. Google LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-08655-JHR

Dear Judge Rearden:

We represent Defendant Google LLC (“Google”) in this matter. Pursuant to Rule 9(C) of Your

Honor’s Individual Rules, we respectfully request permission to file the attached EEOC Position

Statement—an exhibit to Google’s response (ECF No. 404-2) to Plaintiff Ulku Rowe’s letter supplementing

her motion for post-judgment relief—in redacted form. Ms. Rowe consents to Google’s request.

For the same reasons that this Court found that Ms. Rowe’s 2024 EEOC Charge is a “judicial

document’ to which the presumption of public access attaches (ECF No. 403), Google acknowledges that

the EEOC Position Statement! is a judicial document. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110,

119 (2d Cir. 2006). Google merely seeks permission to redact from the publicly filed EEOC Position

Statement the identities of (1) current and potential customers and clients of Google Cloud, and (2) certain

former Google employees who are non-parties to this action. These proposed redactions satisfy the

requirement that a sealing order be “narrowly tailored.” /d. at 124.

The EEOC Position Statement, as well as its Exhibits B—-H, J, K, N, O and P, identify current and

potential customers and clients of Google Cloud. Identification of these entities is generally not

disseminated outside of Google without permission from the customer or client. (ECF No. 148? J 3.) Public

disclosure of this information would put Google at a competitive disadvantage in the highly competitive

cloud marketplace. (/d. 6.) Indeed, this Court has previously held that “this information is unnecessary to

1 Attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

Paul Hastings LLP | 200 Park Avenue | New York, NY 10166

Hon. Jennifer H. Rearden

April 15, 2025

Page 2

adjudicate Plaintiff's claims . . . and the risk of competitive harm outweighs the public right of access.” (ECF

No. 220 at 3.) In so holding, this Court observed correctly that “[p]reventing competitive harm is a

countervailing interest that can override the public right of access.” (/d. (citing U.S. v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d

1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1995).) See also Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Sunny Merch. Corp., 97 F. Supp. 3d

485, 511 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (permitting redactions “limited to specific business information . . . which, if

revealed, may provide valuable insights into a company’s current business practices that a competitor

would seek to exploit”). Google respectfully requests permission to redact this information.

The EEOC Position Statement also identifies, and discusses the work performance of, three former

Google employees who are not parties to this action. This information is in the EEOC Position Statement

only to provide context regarding Patricia Florissi’s evaluation of her direct reports more generally. None of

the three employees have anything directly to do with Ms. Rowe’s claims in this action. Again, this Court

has previously held that information of this type is sealable because it is “unrelated to the resolution of this

case and implicates the privacy interests of non-parties.” (ECF No. 220 at 8; see also ECF No. 232 (granting

Google’s motion to seal personnel information of non-parties).) Google respectfully requests permission to

redact the identities of these three individuals.

We thank the Court for its consideration.

Respectfully submitted,

[kine

Kenneth W. Gage

Sara B. Tomezsko

PAUL HASTINGS LLP