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 REGARDING
9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE SEALING
MOTIONS
10 POINT FINANCIAL, INC.,
[Re: ECF Nos. 265, 267]
11 Defendant.
12
13 Before the Court are two administrative motions:
14 (1) Google LLC’s (“Google”) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. ECF No. 265.
15 (2) Point Financial, Inc.’s (“PFI”) Administrative Motion to Consider Whether PFI’s
16 Reply in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment Should be Sealed. ECF
17 No. 267.
18 For the reasons set forth below, the administrative motions are GRANTED to the extent Google
19 seeks redactions.
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. 265
21 Google has filed an administrative motion to seal portions of its reply in support of its
22 motion for partial summary judgment and exhibits thereto. ECF No. 265. PFI did not submit an
23 opposition.
24 Google separates its sealing request into three categories. The first category is “terms and
25 phrases pertaining to Google’s confidential and proprietary technology at issue in this litigation.”
26 Id. at 2. Google contends the disclosure of this information would reveal Google’s confidential
27 technology and in turn “weaken the competitive advantage Google maintains in the marketplace.”
1 confidential contracts with third parties pertaining to Google’s plans regarding the chip at issue in
2 this litigation. 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 harm
4 its competitive advantage. Id. The third category of information Google seeks to seal is non-
5 public business information pertaining to Google’s agreements with third parties as to its plans for
6 the at-issue chip. Id. According to Google, the public disclosure of this information would reveal
7 Google’s strategy with respect to its contractual relationships and weaken its leverage. Id. at 2–3.
8 As the sealing request relates to a reply in support of a motion for partial summary
9 judgment, which the Court finds is “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause[s] of
10 action,” the Court will apply the “compelling reasons” standard. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at
11 1099–101. The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the materials Google identifies,
12 because the “compelling reasons” standard is met for confidential business information that would
13 harm a party’s competitive standing if publicly disclosed. See Music Grp. Macao Com. Offshore
14 Ltd. v. Foote, No. 14-cv-03078, 2015 WL 3993147, at *6 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015); Jam Cellars,
15 Inc. v. Wine Grp. LLC, No. 19-cv-01878, 2020 WL 5576346, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2020)
16 (finding compelling reasons for sealing “confidential business and proprietary information”); Fed.
17 Trade Comm’n v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 17-cv-00220, 2019 WL 95922, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3,
18 2019) (finding compelling reasons for sealing “information that, if published, may harm . . .
19 competitive standing and divulges terms of confidential contracts, contract negotiations, or trade
20 secrets”); In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding sealable “business
21 information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing”).
22 The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. See Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(3). The
23 Court’s ruling is summarized below:
24
25
26
27
Public ECF Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling
1
No. /
2 Sealed
ECF. No.
3 264 / 265-3 Google’s Reply in Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing
Support of Its Motion 1:18-19, 21, 23-24; confidential business
4 for Partial Summary 2:2, 4, 10, 12-13, 15-19; information, the release of
Judgment 7:17-18, 21-22, 24-26; which could harm Google.
5
8:2-4, 8-9;
6 12:11, 13, 16-18, 24;
13:2, 7, 9, 11, 16, 20-22, 25,
7 28;
14:1-2, 4-5, 8, 10-11, 16-17,
8 24.
264-3 / 265- Exhibit 120 to Google’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing
9
4 Reply in Support of Its 1:1, 4, 6, 10, 13-16, 20, 25- confidential business
10 Motion for Partial 26; information, the release of
Summary Judgment 2:1-6, 9-12, 16, 19-20; which could harm Google.
11 3:1-6, 9-12, 16, 20-21;
4:1, 3-8, 10-13, 15, 17-21;
12
5:1, 4-6, 10-11, 16;
6:4, 10, 14;
13
7:1-2, 4, 12-18, 22;
14 8:1, 6, 12-13, 15, 19;
9:5-6;
15 10:1-6, 10-11, 16;
11:2, 7, 11, 18, 22;
16
12:4-5, 9-10, 16, 19, 23;
17 13:1, 6-8, 12, 17-19;
14:7, 12-13, 15;
18 15:7, 12-13, 15;
16:4, 9-10, 12;
19 17:1, 6-7, 9, 13, 18-19, 21.
264-3 / 265- Exhibit 121 to Google’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing
20 4 Reply in Support of Its 1:1, 4, 6, 9, 12, 15-16, 20, 27; confidential business
21 Motion for Partial 2:1-2, 4. information, the release of
Summary Judgment which could harm Google.
22 264-3 / 265- Exhibit 122 to Google’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing
4 Reply in Support of Its 1:1, 4, 6, 12-17, 22- confidential business
23 Motion for Partial information, the release of
Summary Judgment 23, 25. which could harm Google.
24
264-3 / 265- Exhibit 123 to Google’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing
25 4 Reply in Support of Its 1:1, 4-5, 7, 9, 12, 15, 20, 27, confidential business
Motion for Partial 32-33; information, the release of
26 Summary Judgment 2:2. which could harm Google.
27
264-3 / 265- Exhibit 124 to Google’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing
1 4 Reply in Support of Its 1:1, 3-4, 8, 13-15, 17, 21-25, confidential business
2 Motion for Partial 31; information, the release of
Summary Judgment 2:3-4, 6. which could harm Google.
3 264-3 / 265- Exhibit 126 to Google’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing
4 Reply in Support of Its 1:9, 18-19, 25-26; confidential business
4 Motion for Partial 2:6, 14. information, the release of
Summary Judgment which could harm Google.
5
264-3 / 265- Exhibit 127 to Google’s Entire audio file. GRANTED as containing
6 4 Reply in Support of Its confidential business
Motion for Partial information, the release of
7 Summary Judgment which could harm Google.
8 III. ECF NO. 267
9 PFI has filed an administrative motion to consider whether PFI’s reply in support of its
10 motion for summary judgment should be sealed. ECF No. 267. Google submitted a statement in
11 support of sealing. ECF No. 270. Although PFI maintains that “none of these materials warrant
12 sealing,” ECF No. 267 at 1, PFI does not oppose Google’s request.
13 Google separates its sealing request into three categories. The first category is “terms and
14 phrases pertaining to Google’s confidential and proprietary technology at issue in this litigation.”
15 ECF No. 270 at 2. Google contends the disclosure of this information would reveal Google’s
16 confidential technology and in turn “weaken the competitive advantage Google maintains in the
17 marketplace.” Id. The second category consists of quotes or close restatements of provisions of
18 Google’s confidential contracts with third parties pertaining to Google’s plans regarding the chip
19 at issue in this litigation. Id. Google argues that the disclosure of this information would expose
20 Google’s “strategic decision-making with respect to the terms offered to its contracting partners”
21 and harm its competitive advantage. Id. The third category of information Google seeks to seal is
22 non-public business information pertaining to Google’s agreements with third parties as to its
23 plans for the at-issue chip. Id. According to Google, the public disclosure of this information
24 would reveal Google’s strategy with respect to its contractual relationships and weaken its
25 leverage. Id.
26 As the sealing request relates to a reply in support of a motion for summary judgment,
27 which the Court finds is “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause[s] of action,” the
1 The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the materials Google identifies, because the
2 “compelling reasons” standard is met for confidential business information that would harm a
3 party’s competitive standing if publicly disclosed. See Music Grp. Macao Com. Offshore Ltd. v.
4 Foote, No. 14-cv-03078, 2015 WL 3993147, at *6 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015); Jam Cellars, Inc. v.
5 Wine Grp. LLC, No. 19-cv-01878, 2020 WL 5576346, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2020) (finding
6 compelling reasons for sealing “confidential business and proprietary information”); Fed. Trade
7 Comm’n v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 17-cv-00220, 2019 WL 95922, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019)
8 (finding compelling reasons for sealing “information that, if published, may harm . . . competitive
9 standing and divulges terms of confidential contracts, contract negotiations, or trade secrets”); In
10 re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding sealable “business information
11 that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing”).
12 The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. See Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(3). The
13 Court’s ruling is summarized below:
Public ECF Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling
14
No. /
15 Sealed
ECF. No.
16 Not on the Point Financial, Inc.’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing
Docket / 271 Reply in Support of 1:20, 22-23; confidential business
17 Motion for Summary 3:25; information, the release of
Judgment 4:1-4; which could harm Google.
18
5:17, 19, 22-23, 25-26;
19 6:1-2, 4-6, 9-10, 12, 14, 19;
7:15;
20 10:1, 10-11, 19-20, 22, 25-
26;
21 11:1, 6, 9, 11, 16, 18-19, 21,
26-27;
22
12:3, 6, 10, 15-19; 23-24, 27;
23 13:1-3, 11-13, 22.
24 IV. ORDER
25 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
26 (1) Google’s administrative motion, ECF No. 265, is GRANTED.
27 (2) PFI’s administrative motion, ECF No. 267, is GRANTED to the extent Google
1 (3) PFISHALL submit a public version of its reply brief on or before June 9, 2026.
2 Dated: June 3, 2026
°
Mn LABSON FREEMAN
4 United States District Judge
5
6
7
8
9
10
1]
a 12
13
14
15
16
17
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28