# Rodriguez v. Google LLC

> District Court, N.D. California · August 18, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11122726

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** August 18, 2025
- **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/11122726

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
ANIBAL RODRIGUEZ, et al.,
10 Case No. 20-cv-04688-RS
Plaintiffs,
11
v. ORDER GRANTING IN PART,
12 DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO
GOOGLE LLC, SEAL
13
Defendant.
14

15 I. INTRODUCTION
16 Various motions to seal remain pending on the docket and are adjudged as follows.
17 II. LEGAL STANDARD
18 There is a strong presumption in favor of allowing public access when deciding whether
19 materials should be sealed. See Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011).
20 This presumption stems from the citizenry’s “general right to inspect and copy public records and
21 documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435
22 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). It also serves the purpose of “promoting the public’s understanding
23 of the judicial process and of significant public events.” Valley Broad. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court—D.
24 Nev., 798 F2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986).
25 In this court, to overcome the strong presumption in favor of public access, a request to
26 seal must be, inter alia, narrowly tailored. Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). More generally, in the courts of
27 the Ninth Circuit, a party seeking to seal court records must satisfy one of two standards. Where
1 less exacting ‘good cause’ standard.” See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d
2 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016). If the material is related to the merits, however, a higher burden
3 applies, and sealing is only proper if the court finds “a compelling reason and articulate[s] the
4 factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Kamakana v. City & Cty.
5 of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006) (“The mere fact that the production of
6 records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will
7 not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.”). Where a litigant presents compelling
8 reasons to seal material, supported by articulated facts, the court must then balance the interests of
9 the public and the party seeking sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096–97. This
10 balancing test involves such factors as the public’s interest in understanding the functioning of the
11 judicial process and the volume of material sought to be sealed. See Zakinov v. Ripple Labs, Inc.,
12 No. 18-cv-6753-PJH, 2023 WL 5280193, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2023).
13 III. DISCUSSION
14 A. Dkt No. 454
15 In this motion, Plaintiffs seek to seal personal information in their Rule 26(a)(1)
16 disclosures. The motion is granted. See Nursing Home Pension Fund v. Oracle Corp., 2007 WL
17 3232267, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2007) (“an individual’s privacy interest” is a compelling reason
18 to seal a document). Public understanding of the case will not be impeded because Plaintiffs’
19 addresses and phone numbers are irrelevant to any material questions.
20 B. Dkt No. 469
21 Here, Plaintiffs ask to seal personal information about would-be class members who
22 sought exclusion from the certified classes. As explained above, the motion is granted.
23 C. Dkt. No. 497
Pursuant to the court’s April 23, 2025 Order, Google submitted a statement explaining its
24
requests to seal various portions of the briefing and exhibits filed in connection with the parties’
25
Daubert motions and the motions about whether Google’s CEO would testify at trial.
26
Because some of this evidence appears likely to be used at trial, the motion to seal is
27
1 preliminarily denied without prejudice. To the extent either party successfully introduces any of
2 the cited documents into evidence, such evidence would not warrant sealing given that it will have
3 been deemed relevant and more probative than prejudicial. Any of these documents that do not
4 come into evidence, however, would seem to be less than necessary to any public understanding of
the case. For now, the materials remain under seal; within two weeks of any final jury verdict,
5
parties are instructed to file any of the documents that were entered into evidence on the public
6
docket; any documents that did not amount to evidence may remain sealed thereafter.1
7
D. Dkt. No. 532
8
Google also moves to seal various portions of exhibits it filed in connection with its
9
motions in limine. Aside from the personally identifying email addresses, nothing in the attached
10
exhibits warrants addressing at this juncture. As stated above, the materials may remain sealed
11
pending their introduction into evidence. Anything that becomes evidence must be filed on the
12
public docket within two weeks of any final jury verdict, and anything that does not become
13
evidence may remain sealed as filed.
14
E. Dkt. No. 546
15
Google next asks the court to consider whether certain material Plaintiffs designated as
16
confidential must be sealed. Plaintiffs having not responded, no compelling reasons appears to
17
seal these materials. Nor do any of the identified sections appear worthy of sealing. They shall be
18
filed on the public docket.
19
F. Dkt. No. 562
20
In another sealing motion, Google aims to seal materials Plaintiffs included in opposition
21
to motions in limine that Google filed. The individual email addresses and code names in these
22
materials may remain sealed and/or redacted, but any of the other material which Google seeks to
23
seal will not be kept sealed if it is evidence in the trial. Any such exhibits that become evidence
24
must be filed on the public docket within two weeks of any final jury verdict.
25
26

27 1 This ruling addresses pending motions at Dkt. Nos. 470, 485.
1
2 || ITISSO ORDERED.
3
4 || Dated: August 18, 2025
5
ICHARD SEEBORG
6 Chief United States District Judge
4
8
9
10
11
a 12

15
16

= 17

Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 ORDER ON SEALING MOTIONS
CASE No. 20-cv-04688-RS

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11122726. Public record. Not legal advice.