finding sealable 15 “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing”
How later courts described this case
- finding sealable 15 “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5 SAN JOSE DIVISION
6
7 GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-04033-BLF
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER REGARDING GOOGLE LLC’S
9 v. AND POINT FINANCIAL, INC.’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
10 POINT FINANCIAL, INC., SEAL
11 Defendant.
[Re: Dkt. Nos. 82, 100]
12
13 Before the Court are Point Financial, Inc.’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether
14 Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed, Dkt. No. 82, and Google LLC’s Administrative
15 Motion to File Under Seal, Dkt. No. 100. For the reasons described below, the Court DENIES AS
16 MOOT the administrative motion at Dkt. No. 82 and GRANTS the administrative motion at Dkt.
17 No. 100.
18 I. LEGAL STANDARD
19 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records
20 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of
21 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435
22 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong
23 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.
24 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to
25 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden
26 of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of
27 access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d
1 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local
2 Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a
3 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that
4 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive
5 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Civil Local Rule 79-5 requires the
6 moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” Civ. L.R. 79-
7 5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.”
8 Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3).
9 Further, when a party seeks to seal a document because it has been designated as
10 confidential by another party, the filing party must file an Administrative Motion to Consider
11 Whether Another Party’s Material Should be Sealed. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f). In that case, the filing
12 party need not satisfy the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(1). Instead, the
13 party who designated the material as confidential must, within seven days of the motion’s filing,
14 file a statement and/or declaration that meets the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79-
15 5(f)(3). A designating party’s failure to file a statement or declaration may result in the unsealing
16 of the provisionally sealed document without further notice to the designating party. Id. Any
17 party can file a response to that declaration within four days. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(4).
18 II. DISCUSSION
19 A. Dkt. No. 82
20 After Defendant Point Financial, Inc. (“PFI”) refiled certain of the exhibits accompanying
21 PFI’s Response to Application for Order to Show Cause with corrected exhibit numbers, PFI filed
22 this Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Point Financial, Inc.’s Corrected Exhibits E-N to
23 Its Response to Application for Order to Show Cause Should Be Sealed Pursuant to Google,
24 LLC’s Designations and Court Order to request that the Court “consider whether PFI’s corrected
25 Exhibits E–N to PFI’s Response to Google LLC’s Application for Order to Show Cause” should
26 be sealed. Dkt. No. 82 at 2. Google filed a statement in response to the administrative motion,
27 noting that the Court’s July 21, 2025 Order regarding certain of Google’s and PFI’s administrative
1 accompanying sealing motion. Dkt. No. 92 at 2. Rather than filing a statement in support of
2 sealing, Google requests an order denying PFI’s administrative motion at Dkt. No. 82 as moot.
3 As Google’s response indicates, the materials identified in the administrative motion at
4 Dkt. No. 82 are addressed in the Court’s July 21, 2025 Order Regarding Administrative Motions
5 to Seal and in the following Order regarding the administrative motion at Dkt. No. 100.
6 Therefore, the Court DENIES AS MOOT PFI’s separate administrative motion to consider
7 whether another party’s materials should be sealed filed at Dkt. No. 82.
8 B. Dkt. No. 100
9 Google files this Motion for Administrative Relief pursuant to the Court’s July 21, 2025
10 Order Regarding Google LLC’s and Point Financial, Inc.’s Administrative Motions to Seal, Dkt.
11 No. 84, which denied without prejudice certain of Google’s sealing requests and required Google
12 to file any renewed motion to seal by August 4, 2025. Dkt. No. 100 at 2. In this renewed motion
13 to seal, Google argues that the information for which sealing was denied in the Court’s July 21
14 Order is sealable because it consists of:
15 (1) valuable scientific, technical, and engineering information pertaining to the
plans to develop, design, and manufacture a product that is the subject of confidential
16
agreements between Google and third parties; (2) provisions of confidential agreements
17 between Google and third parties pertaining to the plans to develop, design, and
manufacture a product that contains Google’s scientific, technical, and engineering
18
information not known or readily ascertainable by the general public and which scientific,
19 technical, and engineering information is maintained by Google as confidential in the
ordinary course of its business; and (3) non-public information regarding Google’s
20 confidential agreements with third parties pertaining to the plans to develop, design, and
21 manufacture a product that contains Google’s scientific, technical, and engineering
information not known or readily ascertainable by the general public and which scientific,
22 technical, and engineering information is maintained by Google as confidential in the
23 ordinary course of its business.
24 Id. at 4. Google argues that “[p]reserving the confidentiality and secrecy” of Google’s
25 confidential business materials “is critical to preserving Google’s competitive position in the
26 market and to preventing misuse” of the materials. Id. at 5.
27 As the sealing request relates to an answer and counterclaim and a motion for a
1 cause[s] of action,” the Court will apply the “compelling reasons” standard. Ctr. for Auto Safety,
2 809 F.3d at 1099–101. The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the materials Google
3 identifies. First, compelling reasons exist to seal trade secrets. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179;
4 Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc., No. 21-cv-02436, 2023 WL 7678270, at *2 (N.D. Cal.
5 Nov. 13, 2023). Second, the “compelling reasons” standard is also met for confidential business
6 information that would harm a party’s competitive standing if publicly disclosed, including
7 materials discussing “network infrastructure and security systems.” See Music Grp. Macao Com.
8 Offshore Ltd. v. Foote, No. 14-cv-03078, 2015 WL 3993147, at *6 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015); Jam
9 Cellars, Inc. v. Wine Grp. LLC, No. 19-cv-01878, 2020 WL 5576346, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17,
10 2020) (finding compelling reasons for sealing “confidential business and proprietary
11 information”); Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 17-cv-00220, 2019 WL 95922, at *3
12 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019) (finding compelling reasons for “information that, if published, may harm
13 . . . competitive standing and divulges terms of confidential contracts, contract negotiations, or
14 trade secrets”); In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding sealable
15 “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing”). The Court also finds
16 that the request is narrowly tailored. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3).
17 The Court’s ruling is summarized below:
18 Dkt. No. Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling
19 100-4 PFI’s Answer and Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing
Counterclaim 3:8, 11; 4:23-24; 6:10; confidential business
20
17:19, 24; 18:1. information, the release of
21 which would cause a party
competitive harm.
22 100-4 Exhibit A to PFI’s Highlighted portions. GRANTED as containing
Response to confidential business
23 Application for Order information, the release of
to Show which would cause a party
24
Cause competitive harm.
25 100-4 Exhibit E to PFI’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing
Response to 3:16, 18, 20, 22; 4:4, 6, 8, 9, confidential business
26 Application for Order 13; 5:12; 7:1-2; 9:12, 21; information, the release of
to Show Cause 10:14; 11:2-3, 6, 9, 23-24; which would cause a party
27 12:6-7, 10, 13, 18; 13:4, 12- competitive harm.
16:3, 9; 17:1-2, 6, , 8-10,
1
12, 14-25; 18:1, 6-20, 22,
2 24-25.
3
100-4 Exhibit F to PFI’s Highlighted portions. GRANTED as containing
4 Response to confidential business
Application for Order information, the release of
5
to Show Cause which would cause a party
6 competitive harm.
100-4 Exhibit G to PFI’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing
7 Response to 6:2, 4, 6, 8, 18, 21, 24; confidential business
Application for Order 7:4, 8, 14; 8:6-7, 20, 23; information, the release of
8 to Show Cause 9:13; 10:1-8, 10. which would cause a party
competitive harm.
9
10
11 100-4 Exhibit H to PFI’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing
Response to 2:12; 5:6, 8; 6:9, 14; confidential business
12 Application for Order 8:12; 10:4, 7; 11:8, 14-15, information, the release of
to Show Cause 25; 12:5-6, 12; 13:12; which would cause a party
13 14:11-13, 24-25; 15:8, 13- competitive harm.
15, 17, 22; 16:2, 5, 7;
14
17:8, 13, 17, 19; 18:1, 4;
15 19:2-3, 21; 21:17; 22:1-2, 4;
23:3; 27:10; 29:3-5, 8, 12-
16 15, 18-19; 30:16; 31:4;
32:4, 11; 34:6, 9, 23-24;
17 35:2, 7, 10, 18-19, 24;
36:10, 19-20, 22-23;
18
37:8-10, 19; 38:4, 8;
19 39:9, 12, 20-22, 24-25;
40:1, 4, 9, 15-19; 41:9-10,
20 12, 14-15, 18-20, 24; 42:1-
2, 4, 8-9, 11, 14-15, 20, 22,
21 25; 43:9, 17, 24; 44:3, 6, 8,
13-27, 20-21, 23; 45:2, 8-
22
10, 19-21, 23-25; 46:1, 3-4,
23 12-13, 16, 22; 47:11, 13, 15-
16, 19; 48:7-8, 21-22; 49:8-
24 9, 13, 18-20; 50:5-6, 8-9,
12, 22; 51:4, 8-9, 20-23;
25 52:7, 11-13, 15-19; 53:4-5;
54:3, 16, 20-21; 55:5-6.
26
27
100-4 Exhibit I to PFI’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing
1
Response to 3:23; 7:8-11; 9:3-5, 7-8, 10, confidential business
2 Application for Order 16; 11:2, 5; 12: 22; 13:3-5; information, the release of
to Show Cause 16:4, 7-8, 11, 15, 20, 25; which would cause a party
3 17:1, 14-15, 18, 23; competitive harm.
18:9, 12, 15-16, 19, 22;
4 19:2-3; 20:10, 19-20.
5 100-4 Exhibit J to PFI’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing
Response to 7:4; 8:25; 9:1, 4; 10:15-17, confidential business
6 Application for Order 23; 11:4-7, 19, 22; 12:7, 18, information, the release of
to Show Cause 20; 13:2-3, 12-14; which would cause a party
7
14:1-2, 5, 11-13, 23-25; competitive harm.
8 15:3, 6-8; 16:5, 11-12, 16,
20, 22; 17:1, 4, 20; 18:1, 5,
9 22, 25; 19:1, 21, 25; 21:1-2.
100-4 Exhibit M to PFI’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing
10
Response to 3:11-14, 20, 22; 4:4, 9, 11; confidential business
Application for Order 5:12-13, 18; 6:2. information, the release of
11
to Show Cause which would cause a party
12 competitive harm.
13
14 100-4 Exhibit N to PFI’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing
Response to 3:15-26; 4:1-26; 5:1-21; confidential business
15 Application for Order 6:11-12, 22; 7:2, 19-21, 25- information, the release of
to Show Cause 26; 8:3, 11, 14, 23; 9:7. which would cause a party
16
competitive harm.
17
18
100-4 Exhibit 1 to Google’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing
19 Supplemental Reply 4:7. confidential business
in Support of information, the release of
20 its Motion for a which would cause a party
Preliminary competitive harm.
21 Injunction
22
100-4 Exhibit 4 to Google’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing
23 Supplemental Reply 3:2, 10-11, 25; 4:12, 22; confidential business
in Support of 5:2, 4, 6, 10, 15; 10:9, 19, information, the release of
24
its Motion for a 23. which would cause a party
25 Preliminary competitive harm.
Injunction
26
27
I 100-4 Exhibit 10 to Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing
Google’s 4:13; 7:2-3, 21; 8:17; confidential business
2 Supplemental Reply □ 9:1-2, 4; 10:3; 13:1, 4, 9, information, the release of
in Support of 15-19; 14:9-10, 12, 14-15, |which would cause a party
3 its Motion for a 18-20, 24. competitive harm.
Preliminary
4 Injunction
5 100-4 Exhibit 35 to Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing
Google’s 2:5, 11-13, 23-25. confidential business
6 Supplemental Reply information, the release of
4 in Support of Which would cause a party
its Motion for a competitive harm.
8 Preliminary
Injunction
9
10 Il. ORDER
11 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
12 1. Point Financial, Inc.’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s
13 Material Should Be Sealed, Dkt. No. 82, is DENIED AS MOOT; and
14 2. Google LLC’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Dkt. No. 100, is GRANTED.
15
16 IT IS SO ORDERED.
= 17
18 || Dated: August 18, 2025
ETH LABSON FREEMAN
20 United States District Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28