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. 284, 293]
11 Defendant.
12
13 Before the Court are two administrative motions:
14 (1) Point Financial, Inc.’s (“PFI”) Combined Administrative Motions to File Under Seal
15 and to Consider Whether Materials Should Be Sealed. ECF No. 284.
16 (2) PFI’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether PFI’s Notice of Motion to Modify
17 Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum in Support Should Be Sealed. ECF No. 293.
18 For the reasons set forth below, PFI’s administrative motion to file under seal, ECF No. 284, is
19 GRANTED, PFI’s administrative motion to consider whether materials should be sealed, ECF
20 No. 284, is GRANTED to the extent Google LLC (“Google”) seeks redactions, and PFI’s
21 administrative motion to consider whether its motion to modify the preliminary injunction should
22 be sealed, ECF No. 293, is GRANTED to the extent Google seeks redactions.
23 I. LEGAL STANDARD
24 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records
25 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of
26 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435
27 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong
1 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to
2 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden
3 of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of
4 access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d
5 1092, 1099–101 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–80.
6 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local
7 Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a
8 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that
9 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive
10 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Civil Local Rule 79-5 requires the
11 moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” Civil L.R. 79-
12 5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.”
13 Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(3).
14 Further, when a party seeks to seal a document because it has been designated as
15 confidential by another party, the filing party must file an Administrative Motion to Consider
16 Whether Another Party’s Material Should be Sealed. Civil L.R. 79-5(f). In that case, the filing
17 party need not satisfy the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civil L.R. 79-5(f)(1). Instead, the
18 party who designated the material as confidential must, within seven days of the motion’s filing,
19 file a statement and/or declaration that meets the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civil L.R. 79-
20 5(f)(3). A designating party’s failure to file a statement or declaration may result in the unsealing
21 of the provisionally sealed document without further notice to the designating party. Id. Any
22 party can file a response to that declaration within four days. Civil L.R. 79-5(f)(4).
23 II. ECF NO. 284
24 In connection with its answer and second amended counterclaim (attached to its renewed
25 motion for leave to amend), PFI has filed a combined administrative motion to file under seal and
26 to consider whether materials should be sealed. ECF No. 284. The Court addresses each portion
27 of the motion in turn.
A. PFI’s Motion to File Under Seal
1
Beginning with PFI’s motion to file under seal, PFI seeks to file portions of its answer and
2
second amended counterclaim and accompanying redline under seal. ECF No. 284 at 1. PFI
3
argues that because its submissions contain trade secrets and confidential business information,
4
compelling reasons exist to redact portions of its answer and second amended counterclaim. Id.
5
Google does not oppose.
6
As the sealing request relates to an answer and second amended counterclaim, which the
7
Court finds is “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause[s] of action,” the Court will
8
apply the “compelling reasons” standard. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099–101. The Court
9
finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the materials PFI identifies, because the “compelling
10
reasons” standard is met for confidential business information that would harm a party’s
11
competitive standing if publicly disclosed. See Music Grp. Macao Com. Offshore Ltd. v. Foote,
12
No. 14-cv-03078, 2015 WL 3993147, at *6 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015); Jam Cellars, Inc. v. Wine
13
Grp. LLC, No. 19-cv-01878, 2020 WL 5576346, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2020) (finding
14
compelling reasons for sealing “confidential business and proprietary information”); Fed. Trade
15
Comm’n v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 17-cv-00220, 2019 WL 95922, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019)
16
(finding compelling reasons for sealing “information that, if published, may harm . . . competitive
17
standing and divulges terms of confidential contracts, contract negotiations, or trade secrets”); In
18
re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding sealable “business information
19
that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing”). The Court also finds that the request is
20
narrowly tailored. See Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(3).
21
The Court’s ruling is summarized below:
22 Public ECF Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling
No. /
23
Sealed
24 ECF. No.
283-1 / 284- Point Financial, Inc.’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing
25 4 Answer and Second 16:11-17:24. confidential business
Amended Counterclaim information, the release of
26
which could harm PFI.
27
283-2 / 284- Redlined copy of Point Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing
1 5 Financial Inc.’s Answer 16:11-17:24. confidential business
2 and Second Amended information, the release of
Counterclaim which could harm PFI.
3
B. PFI’s Motion to Consider Whether Google’s Material Should be Sealed
4
PFI also moves for the Court to consider whether additional portions of its answer and
5
second amended complaint should be sealed. ECF No. 284 at 3–4. Google has submitted a
6
statement in support of sealing, seeking to redact terms and phrases pertaining to Google’s
7
confidential and propriety technology at issue in this litigation. See ECF No. 296 at 2. Google
8
takes the position that the public disclosure of these materials would weaken the competitive
9
advantage that Google maintains as a result of the substantial investment it has made into this
10
technology. Id. Although PFI contends that “none of these materials warrant sealing,” ECF
11
No. 284 at 4, PFI does not oppose Google’s request
12
As the sealing request relates to an answer and second amended counterclaim, which the
13
Court finds is “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause[s] of action,” the Court will
14
apply the “compelling reasons” standard. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099–101. The Court
15
finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the materials Google identifies, because the “compelling
16
reasons” standard is met for confidential business information that would harm a party’s
17
competitive standing if publicly disclosed. See Music Grp. Macao Com. Offshore Ltd. v. Foote,
18
No. 14-cv-03078, 2015 WL 3993147, at *6 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015); Jam Cellars, Inc. v. Wine
19
Grp. LLC, No. 19-cv-01878, 2020 WL 5576346, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2020) (finding
20
compelling reasons for sealing “confidential business and proprietary information”); Fed. Trade
21
Comm’n v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 17-cv-00220, 2019 WL 95922, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019)
22
(finding compelling reasons for sealing “information that, if published, may harm . . . competitive
23
standing and divulges terms of confidential contracts, contract negotiations, or trade secrets”); In
24
re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding sealable “business information
25
that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing”). The Court also finds that the request is
26
narrowly tailored. See Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(3).
27
1 The Court’s ruling is summarized below:
Public ECF Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling
2
No. /
3 Sealed
ECF. No.
4 283-1 / 297 Point Financial, Inc.’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing
Answer and Second 3:8, 11; confidential business
5 Amended Counterclaim 4:23-24; information, the release of
18:1, 4, 6, 8-15, 17, 19-22, which could harm Google.
6
24-25;
7 19:2, 4;
20:2, 8, 11, 15, 24.
8 283-2 / 297- Redlined copy of Point Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing
1 Financial Answer and 3:8, 11; confidential business
9 Second Amended 4:23-24; information, the release of
Counterclaim 18:1, 4, 6, 8-15, 17, 19-22, which could harm Google.
10
24-25;
11 19:2, 4;
20:2, 8, 11, 15, 24.
12
13
III. ECF NO. 293
14
PFI has also filed an administrative motion to consider whether its notice of motion to
15
modify preliminary injunction and memorandum in support should be sealed. ECF No. 293.
16
Google has submitted a statement in support of sealing. ECF No. 300. Although PFI contends
17
that none of the materials warrant sealing, ECF No. 293 at 1, PFI does not oppose Google’s
18
request.
19
Google separates its sealing request into three categories. The first category is “terms and
20
phrases pertaining to Google’s confidential and proprietary technology at issue in this litigation.”
21
ECF No. 300 at 2. Google contends the disclosure of this information would reveal Google’s
22
confidential technology and in turn “weaken the competitive advantage Google maintains in the
23
marketplace.” Id. The second category consists of quotes and close restatements of provisions of
24
Google’s confidential contracts with third parties pertaining to Google’s plans regarding the chip
25
at issue in this litigation. Id. Google argues that the disclosure of this information would expose
26
Google’s “strategic decision-making with respect to the terms offered to its contracting partners”
27
and harm its competitive advantage. Id. The third category of information Google seeks to seal is
1 non-public business information pertaining to Google’s agreements with third parties as to its
2 plans for the at-issue chip. Id. at 2–3. According to Google, the public disclosure of this
3 information would reveal Google’s strategy with respect to its contractual relationships and
4 weaken its leverage. Id.
5 As the sealing request relates to a motion to modify the preliminary injunction, which the
6 Court finds is “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause[s] of action,” the Court will
7 apply the “compelling reasons” standard. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099–101. The Court
8 finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the materials Google identifies, because the “compelling
9 reasons” standard is met for confidential business information that would harm a party’s
10 competitive standing if publicly disclosed. See Music Grp. Macao Com. Offshore Ltd. v. Foote,
11 No. 14-cv-03078, 2015 WL 3993147, at *6 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015); Jam Cellars, Inc. v. Wine
12 Grp. LLC, No. 19-cv-01878, 2020 WL 5576346, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2020) (finding
13 compelling reasons for sealing “confidential business and proprietary information”); Fed. Trade
14 Comm’n v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 17-cv-00220, 2019 WL 95922, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019)
15 (finding compelling reasons for sealing “information that, if published, may harm . . . competitive
16 standing and divulges terms of confidential contracts, contract negotiations, or trade secrets”); In
17 re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding sealable “business information
18 that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing”). The Court also finds that the request is
19 narrowly tailored. See Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(3).
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1 The Court’s ruling is summarized below:
Public ECF Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling
2
No. /
3 Sealed
ECF. No.
4 292 / 301 PFI’s Notice of Motion Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing
to Modify Preliminary 2:11; confidential business
5 Injunction and 3:27; information, the release of
Memorandum in 4:1-7; which could harm Google.
6 Support
5:9, 13, 23;
7 6:7;
8:11;
8 9:14, 24;
11:12-14;
9 14:19, 23-25;
15:5.
10
292-2 / 301- Proposed Order to Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing
11 1 PFI’s Notice of Motion 2:1, 4-5. confidential business
to Modify Preliminary information, the release of
12 Injunction and which could harm Google.
Memorandum in
13 Support
292-3 / 301- Exhibit A to PFI’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing
14 2 Notice of Motion to 1:11, 23-24, 27, 29; confidential business
Modify Preliminary 2:35; information, the release of
15 Injunction and 3:4, 34; which could harm Google.
16 M Su e p m po o r r t a ndum in 4:9-10, 14, 23.
17 292-3 / 301- Exhibit B to PFI’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing
2 Notice of Motion to 1:1, 4, 6, 9, 12, 15-16, 20, 27; confidential business
18 Modify Preliminary 2:1-2, 4. information, the release of
Injunction and which could harm Google.
19 Memorandum in
Support
20 292-3 / 301- Exhibit D to PFI’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing
2 Notice of Motion to 5:14, 16-17, 22; confidential business
21
Modify Preliminary 6:5, 9-10, 12-13, 16, 19, 24; information, the release of
22 Injunction and 7:3. which could harm Google.
Memorandum in
23 Support
264-3 / 301- Exhibit E to PFI’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing
24 2 Notice of Motion to 2:15, 26; confidential business
Modify Preliminary 3:5, 17; information, the release of
25 Injunction and 4:1, 12, 23; which could harm Google.
Memorandum in 5:3-6, 9-10, 13-19, 21, 24;
26 Support
6:6, 11, 17-19, 23;
27 7:4, 10, 18.
1 264-3 / 301- |Exhibit F to PFI’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing
2 Notice of Motion to 1:16-17, 28; confidential business
2 Modity Preliminary 2:2-3, 15-16, 19, 22, 27-28; |information, the release of
Injunction and 3:28; which could harm Google.
Memorandum in . .
3 Support 4:6-7, 28;
mppe 5:28;
4 6:11.
5
6 || IV. ORDER
7 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
8 (1) PFI’s Combined Administrative Motions, ECF No. 284, are GRANTED as follows:
9 a. PFI’s administrative motion to file under seal is GRANTED.
10 b. PFI’s administrative motion to consider whether materials should be sealed is
1] GRANTED to the extent Google seeks redactions.
a 12 (2) PFI’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether PFI’s Notice of Motion to Modify
13 Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum in Support Should Be Sealed, ECF No. 293,
is GRANTED to the extent Google seeks redactions.
15 (3) PFISHALL file complete public versions of its motions and all of the exhibits with
A 16 redactions consistent with this Order on or before July 6, 2026.
17 || Dated: June 29, 2026
, yy Ly J
Z 18
TH LABSON FREEMAN
19 United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28