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 GRANTING

9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE SEALING

MOTIONS

10 POINT FINANCIAL, INC.,

[Re: ECF Nos. 213, 222]

11 Defendant.

12

13 Before the Court are two administrative motions:

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

15 Answer and Amended Counterclaim Should be Sealed. ECF No. 213.

16 (2) Google LLC’s (“Google”) Administrative Motion for Further Redactions. ECF

17 No. 222.

18 For the reasons that follow, the administrative motion at ECF No. 213 is GRANTED and the

19 administrative motion at ECF No. 222 is GRANTED.

20 I. LEGAL STANDARD

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

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

23 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435

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

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

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

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

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

2 1092, 1099–101 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–80.

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

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

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

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

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

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

9 5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17 5(f)(3). A designating party’s failure to file a statement or declaration may result in the unsealing

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

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

20 II. ECF NO. 213.

21 PFI has filed an administrative motion to consider whether PFI’s answer and amended

22 counterclaim (ECF No. 212) should be sealed. ECF No. 213. Google filed a statement in support

23 of sealing. ECF No. 216. PFI does not oppose Google’s request.

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

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

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

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

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

2 business. Id. Google argues that the disclosure of this information would expose Google’s

3 “strategic decision-making with respect to the terms offered to its contracting partners” and, in

4 turn, harm its competitive advantage. Id. The third category of information Google seeks to seal

5 is the “identity of one of the Vendors that manufacture, test, and assemble the chip at issue in this

6 litigation.” Id. Google argues that the public disclosure of this vendor’s identity would give

7 Google’s competitors and potential contracting partners unfair leverage. Id.

8 As the sealing request relates to an answer and amended counterclaim, which the Court

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

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

11 that compelling reasons exist to seal the materials Google identifies, because the “compelling

12 reasons” standard is met for confidential business information that would harm a party’s

13 competitive standing if publicly disclosed. See Music Grp. Macao Com. Offshore Ltd. v. Foote,

14 No. 14-cv-03078, 2015 WL 3993147, at *6 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015); Jam Cellars, Inc. v. Wine

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

16 compelling reasons for sealing “confidential business and proprietary information”); Fed. Trade

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

18 (finding compelling reasons for sealing “information that, if published, may harm . . . competitive

19 standing and divulges terms of confidential contracts, contract negotiations, or trade secrets”); In

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

21 that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing”). The Court also finds that the request is

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

23

24

25

26

27

1 The Court’s ruling is summarized below:

2 Public Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling

ECF. No. /

3 Sealed

ECF. No.

4

ECF No. PFI’s Answer and Highlighted portions at 3:8, GRANTED as containing

5 212 / ECF Amended 11; 4:23-24. confidential business

No. 213-3 Counterclaim information, the release of

6 which could cause Google

harm.

7

8 III. ECF NO. 222

Google has filed an administrative motion for further redactions. ECF No. 222. Google

9

seeks redactions to the transcript of the hearing regarding PFI’s motion to amend its counterclaim

10

(ECF No. 197). PFI does not oppose Google’s sealing requests.

11

Google seeks to seal “a single provision from the Master Purchase Agreement” that is

12

“marked confidential” and “maintained confidential” in the ordinary course of business. ECF

13

No. 222 at 3. Google argues that the disclosure of this information would expose Google’s

14

“strategic decision-making with respect to the terms offered to its contracting partners” and, in

15

turn, harm its competitive advantage. Id.

16

As the sealing request relates to a transcript of a hearing on a motion to amend a

17

counterclaim, which the Court finds is “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause[s]

18

of action,” the Court will apply the “compelling reasons” standard. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d

19

at 1099–101. The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the materials Google identifies,

20

because the “compelling reasons” standard is met for confidential business information that would

21

harm a party’s competitive standing if publicly disclosed. See Music Grp. Macao Com. Offshore

22

Ltd. v. Foote, No. 14-cv-03078, 2015 WL 3993147, at *6 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015); Jam Cellars,

23

Inc. v. Wine Grp. LLC, No. 19-cv-01878, 2020 WL 5576346, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2020)

24

(finding compelling reasons for sealing “confidential business and proprietary information”); Fed.

25

Trade Comm’n v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 17-cv-00220, 2019 WL 95922, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3,

26

2019) (finding compelling reasons for sealing “information that, if published, may harm . . .

27

] secrets”); In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding sealable “business

2 || information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing”). The Court also finds that the

3 |] request is narrowly tailored. See Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(3).

4 The Court’s ruling is summarized below:

5 Public Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling

ECF. No. /

6 Sealed

7 ECF. No.

ECF No. _ | Transcript of Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing

8 197/ECF |Proceedings held on 5:20-23. confidential business

No. 222-3 | February 19, 2026 information, the release of

9 which could cause Google

harm.

10

1]

a 12 IV. ORDER

13 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

14 (1) PFI’s Administrative Motion, ECF No. 213, is GRANTED.

15 (2) Google’s Administrative Motion, ECF No. 222, is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court

a 16 and the Court Reporter SHALL redact the public transcript consistent with this Order.

2 17 Dated: March 30, 2026

Z 18

TH LABSON FREEMAN

19 United States District Judge

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28