# Opinion > District Court, N.D. California · December 1, 2025 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11212410 ## Case - **Full name:** Google LLC v. Point Financial, Inc. - **Court:** District Court, N.D. California - **Decided:** December 1, 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/11212410 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - finding sealable “business information that might 11 harm a litigant’s competitive standing” ## Opinion text 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 REGARDING GOOGLE 9 v. LLC’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL 10 POINT FINANCIAL, INC., [Re: ECF Nos. 134, 137] 11 Defendant. 12 13 Before the Court are two administrative motions: 14 1. Google LLC’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. ECF No. 134. 15 2. Google LLC’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. ECF No. 137 (“Mot.”). 16 Defendant Point Financial, Inc. does not oppose either motion. For the reasons that follow, 17 the Court GRANTS ECF No. 137, and TERMINATES ECF No. 134 AS MOOT. 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.” Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Civil Local Rule 79-5 requires the 6 moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” Civil L.R. 79- 7 5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.” 8 Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 9 II. ECF NO. 137 10 Google LLC (“Google”) has filed an Administrative Motion to seal portions of its 11 Response to Point Financial Inc.’s (“PFI”) Motion to Amend Counterclaim (ECF No. 136). Mot. 12 at 1–2. Google argues that the material it seeks to seal would “cause substantial harm to Google” 13 if publicly disclosed. Id. at 2. Google further notes that the Court has, in prior orders, already 14 permitted Google to file this information under seal. Id. 15 Google separates its sealing requests into two categories. The first is a term that pertains to 16 the “confidential and proprietary technology at issue in this litigation.” Mot. at 3. Google 17 contends the disclosure of this information would reveal Google’s confidential technology and in 18 turn “weaken the competitive advantage Google maintains in the marketplace.” Id. 19 The second category of requests consists of “direct quotes from the Master Purchase 20 Agreement and Amendment 2 to the Statement of Work,” which are “marked confidential” and 21 “maintained confidential” in the “ordinary course of business.” Id. Google argues that the 22 disclosure of this information would expose Google’s “strategic decision-making with respect to 23 the terms offered to its contracting partners” and, in turn, harm its competitive advantage. Id. 24 As the sealing request relates to an opposition to a motion to amend, which the Court finds 25 is “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause[s] of action,” the Court will apply the 26 “compelling reasons” standard. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099–101. The Court finds that 27 compelling reasons exist to seal the materials Google identifies. First, compelling reasons exist to 1 cv-02436, 2023 WL 7678270, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2023). Second, the “compelling reasons” 2 standard is met for confidential business information that would harm a party’s competitive 3 standing if publicly disclosed. See Music Grp. Macao Com. Offshore Ltd. v. Foote, No. 14-cv- 4 03078, 2015 WL 3993147, at *6 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015); Jam Cellars, Inc. v. Wine Grp. LLC, 5 No. 19-cv-01878, 2020 WL 5576346, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2020) (finding compelling 6 reasons for sealing “confidential business and proprietary information”); Fed. Trade Comm’n 7 v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 17-cv-00220, 2019 WL 95922, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019) (finding 8 compelling reasons for “information that, if published, may harm . . . competitive standing and 9 divulges terms of confidential contracts, contract negotiations, or trade secrets”); In re Elec. Arts, 10 Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding sealable “business information that might 11 harm a litigant’s competitive standing”). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. 12 See Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 13 The Court’s ruling is summarized below: 14 Public Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling ECF. No. / 15 Sealed ECF. No. 16 ECF No. Google LLC’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing 17 136 / ECF Response in 2:10, 15, 18-21; 3:8, 10; confidential business No. 137–3 Opposition to PFI’s 9:19-20; 10:5. information, the release of 18 Motion To Amend which could cause Google Counterclaim harm. 19 20 III. ECF NO. 134 Google filed an Administrative Motion to seal portions of its initial Response to Point 21 Financial Inc.’s (“PFI”) Motion to Amend Counterclaim (ECF No. 133). See ECF No. 134. 22 However, the Court struck ECF No. 133 because it was not in compliance with this Court’s 23 standing orders. ECF No. 135. Because the underlying document Google sought to seal has been 24 stricken from the docket, the Court TERMINATES ECF No. 134 AS MOOT. 25 26 27 l IV. ORDER 2 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. Google’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, ECF No. 134, is TERMINATED 4 AS MOOT. 5 2. Google’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, ECF No. 137, is GRANTED. 6 7 Dated: December 1, 2025 8 Hi H LABSON FREEMAN 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 15 16 = 17 4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11212410. Public record. Not legal advice.