The opinion
1
2
3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5 SAN JOSE DIVISION
6
7 GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 25-cv-04033-BLF
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING GOOGLE LLC'S
9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR
FURTHER REDACTIONS
10 POINT FINANCIAL, INC.,
[Re: ECF No. 106]
11 Defendant.
12
13 Before the Court is Google LLC’s Administrative Motion for Further Redactions. ECF
14 No. 106 (“Mot.”). Defendant Point Financial, Inc. submitted a response in opposition. ECF No.
15 111 (“Opp.”). For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES the Administrative Motion for
16 Further Redactions without prejudice.
17 I. LEGAL STANDARD
18 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records
19 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of
20 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435
21 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong
22 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.
23 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to
24 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden
25 of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of
26 access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d
27 1092, 1099–101 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–80.
1 Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a
2 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that
3 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive
4 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Civil Local Rule 79-5 requires the
5 moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” Civ. L.R. 79-
6 5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.”
7 Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3).
8 II. DISCUSSION
9 Google LLC (“Google”) files this Administrative Motion to seal portions of the transcript
10 of proceedings that took place before the Court on July 10, 2025 (the “Transcript”) (ECF No. 87).
11 Mot. at 2.
12 Google argues that the information is sealable because it consists of:
13 (1) valuable scientific, technical, and engineering information pertaining to the
plans to develop, design, and manufacture a product that is the subject of confidential
14
agreements between Google and third parties; (2) provisions of confidential agreements
15 between Google and third parties pertaining to the plans to develop, design, and
manufacture a product that contains Google’s scientific, technical, and engineering
16
information not known or readily ascertainable by the general public and which scientific,
17 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
18 confidential agreements with third parties pertaining to the plans to develop, design, and
19 manufacture a product that contains Google’s scientific, technical, and engineering
information not known or readily ascertainable by the general public and which scientific,
20 technical, and engineering information is maintained by Google as confidential in the
21 ordinary course of its business.
22 Id. at 3. Google argues that “[p]reserving the confidentiality and secrecy” of Google’s
23 confidential business materials “is critical to preserving Google’s competitive position in the
24 market and to preventing misuse” of the materials. Id. at 4. Google further notes that the
25 materials it seeks to redact have all been sealed previously by the Court. Id. at 2.
26 In opposition, Point Financial, Inc. (“PFI”) argues that Google’s requested redactions are
27 “overbroad, beyond the scope of this Court’s prior grants for redactions, and seek to seal
1 public.” Opp. at 3. PFI further argues that although the Court has granted redactions to some of
2 the terms when they were “presented in direct quotations from the confidential agreements and
3 materials,” Google now “attempts to stretch this Court’s narrow grants of redaction to cover any
4 reference of the subject terms in the transcript, no matter how unrelated or harmless.” Id. at 4.
5 As the sealing request relates to a transcript of a hearing regarding a motion for a
6 preliminary injunction, which the Court finds is “more than tangentially related to the underlying
7 cause[s] of action,” the Court will apply the “compelling reasons” standard. Ctr. for Auto Safety,
8 809 F.3d at 1099–101.
9 Even if the Court were to find that compelling reasons exist to seal some of the materials
10 that Google identifies, the Court finds that the request is not narrowly tailored. See Civ. L.R. 79-
11 5(c)(3). Indeed, many of Google’s requested redactions are terms that the Court finds no reason to
12 seal. See, e.g., ECF No. 87, 32:17.
13 The Court’s ruling is summarized below:
14 ECF No. Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling
15 ECF No. Transcript of Highlighted portions at 5:5- DENIED as overbroad.
87 Proceedings held on 6, 22-25; 6:8-9, 12, 14, 16,
16
July 10, 2025 18-22; 7:7, 13-15, 17, 21,
17 23-25; 8:2-3, 6, 11-14, 19-
20, 23-24; 9:14-15; 13:17-
18 18, 21-23, 25; 14:2, 8, 10-
11, 17; 15:2-4; 16:12-13,
19 18-24; 25:3, 24-25; 26:1;
27:5, 14, 17-18; 28:12-13,
20
18; 30:13, 25; 31:1, 5-6, 11-
21 12, 20; 32:8, 12, 17; 34:5-6;
35:2-3, 5, 8-9; 36:3-4, 11,
22 13, 15-16, 18-19, 21; 37:23,
25; 38:1-4, 14, 16-21;
23 39:10, 13-14, 20; 40:13, 24-
25; 41:1-2; 42:13; 45:14;
24
46:12, 14, 25; 47:1, 23-24;
25 49:1; 53:7; 56:25; 57:1, 12-
13; 58:15, 18-21; 60:2-3, 9-
26 11, 13-14; 61:3-4, 8-11, 14-
16, 21-22; 62:2-4, 6-10, 16,
27 21-22, 24-25; 63:1, 6; 64:5,
1 69:1, 4-5, 16; 70:15, 18-19,
22-24; 71:12, 23-25; 72:1,
2 18, 20; 75:17; 76:11; 78:14-
15; 79:19; 81:2, 12; 85:20-
3 25; 86:1, 5-6, 15-16, 19, 24;
87:4-7; 11, 15-16, 24; 88:3,
4 5, 21; 89:16-17; 90:3-4, 7-8;
95:1, 10.
5
6 Il. ORDER
7 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Google LLC’s Administrative
8 Motion for Further Redactions, ECF No. 106, is DENIED without prejudice. Any refiled
9 administrative motion or declaration SHALL be filed no later than September 29, 2025. If no
10 administrative motions or declarations are filed by September 29, 2025, the Court will direct the
11 Clerk of the Court to file a transcript on the public docket without the requested redactions.
E 13 IT IS SO ORDERED.
5 14
3 15 Dated: September 17, 2025
16 LW MCCWEN
& BETH LABSON FREEMAN
17 United States District Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28