Opinion

Court: District Court, N.D. California
Filed: Feb 25, 2026
Cited by: 0 cases
Authority: More cited than 41.3%

The opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5 SAN JOSE DIVISION

7 GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 25-cv-04033-BLF

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER REGARDING

9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE SEALING

MOTIONS

10 POINT FINANCIAL, INC.,

[Re: ECF Nos. 165, 167, 169]

11 Defendant.

13 Before the Court are three administrative motions:

14 (1) Point Financial, Inc.’s (“PFI”) Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Exhibit D

15 to PFI’s Response to Google LLC’s (“Google”) Motion for Sanctions Should be

16 Sealed. ECF No. 165.

17 (2) PFI’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Exhibit 1 to PFI’s Motion for Leave

18 to File Surreply to Google’s Motion to Enforce Should be Sealed. ECF No. 167.

19 (3) Google LLC’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether PFI’s Material Should be

20 Sealed. ECF No. 169.

21 For the reasons that follow, the administrative motion at ECF No. 165 is GRANTED as narrowed

22 by Google, the administrative motion at ECF No. 167 is GRANTED as narrowed by Google, and

23 the administrative motion at ECF No. 169 is GRANTED to the extent redactions are requested by

24 Google.

25 I. LEGAL STANDARD

26 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records

27 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of

1 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong

2 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

3 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to

4 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden

5 of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of

6 access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d

7 1092, 1099–101 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–80.

8 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local

9 Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a

10 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that

11 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive

12 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Civil Local Rule 79-5 requires the

13 moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” Civil L.R. 79-

14 5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.”

15 Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(3).

16 Further, when a party seeks to seal a document because it has been designated as

17 confidential by another party, the filing party must file an Administrative Motion to Consider

18 Whether Another Party’s Material Should be Sealed. Civil L.R. 79-5(f). In that case, the filing

19 party need not satisfy the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civil L.R. 79-5(f)(1). Instead, the

20 party who designated the material as confidential must, within seven days of the motion’s filing,

21 file a statement and/or declaration that meets the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civil L.R. 79-

22 5(f)(3). A designating party’s failure to file a statement or declaration may result in the unsealing

23 of the provisionally sealed document without further notice to the designating party. Id. Any

24 party can file a response to that declaration within four days. Civil L.R. 79-5(f)(4).

25 II. ECF NO. 165

26 PFI has filed an administrative motion to consider whether Exhibit D to PFI’s Response to

27 Google’s Motion for Sanctions should be sealed. ECF No. 165. Google filed a statement in

1 PFI does not oppose Google’s request.

2 Google separates its sealing requests into three categories. The first category is a term that

3 pertains to the “confidential and proprietary technology at issue in this litigation.” Id. at 2.

4 Google contends the disclosure of this information would reveal Google’s confidential technology

5 and in turn “weaken the competitive advantage Google maintains in the marketplace.” Id.

6 The second category of requests consists of “a direct quote from Amendment 2 to the

7 Statement of Work” which is “marked confidential” and “maintained confidential” in the ordinary

8 course of business. Id. Google argues that the disclosure of this information would expose

9 Google’s “strategic decision-making with respect to the terms offered to its contracting partners”

10 and, in turn, harm its competitive advantage. Id.

11 The third category of information Google seeks to seal is the “identities of the Vendors that

12 manufacture, test, and assemble the chip at issue in this litigation.” Id. Google argues that the

13 public disclosure of the vendors’ identities would give Google’s competitors and potential

14 contracting partners unfair leverage. Id.

15 As the sealing request relates to a response to a motion for sanctions, which the Court finds

16 is “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause[s] of action,” the Court will apply the

17 “compelling reasons” standard. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099–101. The Court finds that

18 compelling reasons exist to seal the materials Google identifies, because the “compelling reasons”

19 standard is met for confidential business information that would harm a party’s competitive

20 standing if publicly disclosed. See Music Grp. Macao Com. Offshore Ltd. v. Foote, No. 14-cv-

21 03078, 2015 WL 3993147, at *6 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015); Jam Cellars, Inc. v. Wine Grp. LLC,

22 No. 19-cv-01878, 2020 WL 5576346, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2020) (finding compelling

23 reasons for sealing “confidential business and proprietary information”); Fed. Trade Comm’n

24 v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 17-cv-00220, 2019 WL 95922, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019) (finding

25 compelling reasons for sealing “information that, if published, may harm . . . competitive standing

26 and divulges terms of confidential contracts, contract negotiations, or trade secrets”); In re Elec.

27 Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding sealable “business information that

1 tailored. See Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(3).

2 The Court’s ruling is summarized below:

3 Public Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling

ECF. No. /

4 Sealed

ECF. No.

ECF No. Exhibit D to PFI’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing

6 164-4 / Response to Google’s 1:13-15; 2:2, 17. confidential business

ECF Motion for Sanctions information, the release of

7 No. 177 which could cause Google

harm.

9 III. ECF NO. 167

PFI has filed an administrative motion to consider whether Exhibit 1 to the proposed

Surreply attached to PFI’s Motion for Leave to File Surreply to Google’s Motion to Enforce the

Preliminary Injunction and for Contempt Sanctions should be sealed. ECF No. 167. Google filed

a statement in support of sealing, which requests narrower redactions than those identified by PFI.

ECF No. 176. PFI does not oppose Google’s request.

Google separates its sealing requests into three categories. The first category is a term that

pertains to the “confidential and proprietary technology at issue in this litigation.” Id. at 2.

Google contends the disclosure of this information would reveal Google’s confidential technology

and in turn “weaken the competitive advantage Google maintains in the marketplace.” Id.

The second category of requests consists of “a direct quote from Amendment 2 to the

Statement of Work” which is “marked confidential” and “maintained confidential” in the ordinary

course of business. Id. Google argues that the disclosure of this information would expose

Google’s “strategic decision-making with respect to the terms offered to its contracting partners”

and, in turn, harm its competitive advantage. Id.

The third category of information Google seeks to seal is the “identities of the Vendors that

manufacture, test, and assemble the chip at issue in this litigation.” Id. Google argues that the

public disclosure of the vendors’ identities would give Google’s competitors and potential

contracting partners unfair leverage. Id.

1 enforce the preliminary injunction and for contempt sanctions, which the Court finds is “more than

2 tangentially related to the underlying cause[s] of action,” the Court will apply the “compelling

3 reasons” standard. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099–101. The Court finds that compelling

4 reasons exist to seal the materials Google identifies, because the “compelling reasons” standard is

5 met for confidential business information that would harm a party’s competitive standing if

6 publicly disclosed. See Music Grp. Macao Com. Offshore Ltd. v. Foote, No. 14-cv-03078, 2015

7 WL 3993147, at *6 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015); Jam Cellars, Inc. v. Wine Grp. LLC, No. 19-cv-

8 01878, 2020 WL 5576346, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2020) (finding compelling reasons for

9 sealing “confidential business and proprietary information”); Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Qualcomm

10 Inc., No. 17-cv-00220, 2019 WL 95922, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019) (finding compelling

11 reasons for sealing “information that, if published, may harm . . . competitive standing and

12 divulges terms of confidential contracts, contract negotiations, or trade secrets”); In re Elec. Arts,

13 Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding sealable “business information that might

14 harm a litigant’s competitive standing”). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored.

15 See Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(3).

16 The Court’s ruling is summarized below:

17 Public Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling

ECF. No. /

18 Sealed

ECF. No.

ECF No. Exhibit 1 to PFI’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing

20 166-2 / Motion for Leave to 107:2, 20; 109:19; 110:1, confidential business

ECF File Surreply to 11, 17; 111:22; 112:11; information, the release of

21 No. 178 Google’s Motion to 114:9, 11, 22; 115:11; which could cause Google

Enforce the 117:24; 119:10, 21, 24; harm.

22 Preliminary 159:8, 25.

Injunction and for

Contempt Sanctions

IV. ECF NO. 169

Google has filed an administrative motion to consider whether Exhibit C to its Reply in

Support of its Motion to Enforce the Preliminary Injunction and for Contempt Sanctions Against

PFI or portions thereof should be sealed. ECF No. 169. Google seeks redactions to the document.

1 Id. PFI does not request any redactions and does not oppose Google’s sealing requests. ECF

2 No. 186.

3 Google separates its sealing requests into two categories. The first is a single term from

4 Amendment 2 to the Statement of Work, which is “marked confidential” and “maintained

5 confidential” in the ordinary course of business. ECF No. 169 at 3. Google argues that the

6 disclosure of this information would expose Google’s “strategic decision-making with respect to

7 the terms offered to its contracting partners” and, in turn, harm its competitive advantage. Id. The

8 second category of information Google seeks to seal is the “identity of one of the Vendors that

9 manufacture, test, and assemble the chip at issue in this litigation.” Id. Google argues that the

10 public disclosure of the identity of this vendor would give Google’s competitors and potential

11 contracting partners unfair leverage. Id.

12 As the sealing request relates to Google’s reply in support of its motion to enforce the

13 preliminary injunction and for contempt sanctions, which the Court finds is “more than

14 tangentially related to the underlying cause[s] of action,” the Court will apply the “compelling

15 reasons” standard. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099–101. The Court finds that compelling

16 reasons exist to seal the materials Google identifies, because the “compelling reasons” standard is

17 met for confidential business information that would harm a party’s competitive standing if

18 publicly disclosed. See Music Grp. Macao Com. Offshore Ltd. v. Foote, No. 14-cv-03078, 2015

19 WL 3993147, at *6 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015); Jam Cellars, Inc. v. Wine Grp. LLC, No. 19-cv-

20 01878, 2020 WL 5576346, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2020) (finding compelling reasons for

21 sealing “confidential business and proprietary information”); Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Qualcomm

22 Inc., No. 17-cv-00220, 2019 WL 95922, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019) (finding compelling

23 reasons for sealing “information that, if published, may harm . . . competitive standing and

24 divulges terms of confidential contracts, contract negotiations, or trade secrets”); In re Elec. Arts,

25 Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding sealable “business information that might

26 harm a litigant’s competitive standing”). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored.

27 See Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(3).

] The Court’s ruling is summarized below:

2 Public Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling

ECF. No. /

3 Sealed

4 ECF. No.

ECF No. — |Exhibit C to Google’s | Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing

5 168 /ECF |Reply in Support of | 107:2, 20; 109:19; 110:1, confidential business

No. 169-3 | Its Emergency 11, 17; 111:22; 112:11; information, the release of

6 Motion to Enforce the | 114:9, 11, 22; 115:11; which could cause Google

Preliminary 117:24; 120:5; 121:22. harm.

7 Injunction and for

g Contempt Sanctions

against PFI Remainder of the document. | DENIED, because no party

9 requests sealing.

V. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) PFI’s Administrative Motion, ECF No. 165, is GRANTED as narrowed by Google.

(2) PFI’s Administrative Motion, ECF No. 167, is GRANTED as narrowed by Google.

(3) Google’s Administrative Motion, ECF No. 169, is GRANTED to the extent redactions

are requested by Google. The motion is otherwise DENIED.

The parties SHALL refile public versions of each filing where the redactions and sealing granted

Z 18

by the Court are narrower than what was redacted in the current public versions on or before

March 11, 2026.

Dated: February 25, 2026

23 TH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.