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. 306, 307]

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. 306.

15 (2) Google’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Point Financial, Inc.’s (“PFI”)

16 Material Should be Sealed. ECF No. 307.

17 For the reasons set forth below, the administrative motion at ECF No. 306 is GRANTED, and the

18 administrative motion at ECF No. 307 is GRANTED to the extent Google requests redactions.

19 I. LEGAL STANDARD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 1092, 1099–101 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–80.

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

16 5(f)(3). A designating party’s failure to file a statement or declaration may result in the unsealing

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

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

19 II. ECF NO. 306

20 Google has filed an administrative motion to seal portions of its response in opposition to

21 PFI’s motion to modify the preliminary injunction order and certain exhibits thereto. ECF

22 No. 306. PFI has not filed a response.

23 Google separates its sealing request into three categories. The first category consists of

24 “terms and phrases pertaining to Google’s confidential and proprietary technology at issue in this

25 litigation.” Id. at 2. Google contends the disclosure of this information would reveal Google’s

26 confidential technology and in turn “weaken the competitive advantage Google maintains in the

27 marketplace.” Id. The second category consists of terms of Google’s confidential contracts with

1 argues that the disclosure of this information would expose Google’s “strategic decision-making

2 with respect to the terms offered to its contracting partners” and harm its competitive advantage.

3 Id. The third category of information Google seeks to seal is non-public business information

4 pertaining to Google’s agreements with third parties as to its plans for the at-issue chip. Id.

5 According to Google, the public disclosure of this information would reveal Google’s strategy

6 with respect to its contractual relationships and weaken its leverage. Id. at 2–3.

7 As the sealing request relates to an opposition to a motion to modify a preliminary

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

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

10 1099–101. The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the materials Google identifies,

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

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

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

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

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

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

17 2019) (finding compelling reasons for sealing “information that, if published, may harm . . .

18 competitive standing and divulges terms of confidential contracts, contract negotiations, or trade

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

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

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

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.

4 305 / 306-3 Google’s Response in Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing

Opposition to PFI’s i:6; confidential business

5 Motion to Modify the 1:12; information, the release of

Preliminary 2:15-16; which could harm Google.

6

Injunction 3:8, 18-19, 22-25;

7 4:14;

5:4, 9-11, 18;

8 6:14;

10:13, 15;

9 11:2;

12:17;

10

17:2-4.

11 305-2 / Exhibit A to Google’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing

306-4 Response in 2:26. confidential business

12 Opposition to PFI’s information, the release of

Motion to Modify the which could harm Google.

13

Preliminary

14 Injunction

305-2 / Exhibit C to Google’s Entire audio file. GRANTED as containing

15 306-4 Response in confidential business

Opposition to PFI’s information, the release of

16 Motion to Modify the which could harm Google.

Preliminary

17

Injunction

18 305-2 / Exhibit E to Google’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing

306-4 Response in 1:12. confidential business

19 Opposition to PFI’s information, the release of

Motion to Modify the which could harm Google.

20 Preliminary

Injunction

21

305-2 / Exhibit F to Google’s Entire audio file. GRANTED as containing

22 306-4 Response in confidential business

Opposition to PFI’s information, the release of

23 Motion to Modify the which could harm Google.

Preliminary

24

Injunction

25 305-2 / Exhibit H to Google’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing

306-4 Response in 77:11. confidential business

26 Opposition to PFI’s information, the release of

Motion to Modify the which could harm Google.

27 Preliminary

305-2 / Exhibit J to Google’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing

1

306-4 Response in 5:13-14. confidential business

2 Opposition to PFI’s information, the release of

Motion to Modify the which could harm Google.

3 Preliminary

Injunction

4 305-2 / Exhibit K to Google’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing

306-4 Response in 1:15, 21-22, 27. confidential business

5

Opposition to PFI’s information, the release of

6 Motion to Modify the which could harm Google.

Preliminary

7 Injunction

8 III. ECF NO. 307

9 Google has filed an administrative motion to consider whether Exhibits G and I to its

10 response in opposition to PFI’s motion to modify the preliminary inunction should be sealed. ECF

11 No. 307. PFI submitted a statement in which it indicates that it does not seek any redactions. ECF

12 No. 319. For its part, Google seeks to seal a single term pertaining to Google’s confidential and

13 propriety technology at issue in this litigation. ECF No. 307 at 3. Google contends that the public

14 disclosure of this information would weaken the competitive advantage Google maintains in the

15 marketplace as a result of the substantial investment it has made into its technology. Id. PFI does

16 not object to Google’s sealing request. ECF No. 319 at 1.

17 As the sealing request relates to an opposition to a motion to modify a preliminary

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

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

20 1099–101. The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the materials Google identifies,

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

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

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

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

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

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

27 2019) (finding compelling reasons for sealing “information that, if published, may harm . . .

] 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 Public ECF Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling

No. /

5 Sealed

ECF. No.

6 305-2 / 307- |Exhibit Ito Google’s [Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing

3 Response in Opposition 45:9, 24. confidential business

7 to PFI’s Motion to information, the release of

Modity the Preliminary which could harm Google.

8 Injunction

9

10 |) IV. ORDER

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

a 12 (1) Google’s administrative motion to file under seal, ECF No. 306, is GRANTED.

13 (2) Google’s administrative motion to consider whether another party’s material should be

Y 14 sealed, ECF No. 307, is GRANTED to the extent Google requests redactions.

15 (3) Google SHALL file a complete public version of its opposition to PFI’s motion to

Qa 16 modify the preliminary injunction on or before July 21, 2026.

y the p y inj

17 Dated: July 14, 2026

Z 18

H LABSON FREEMAN

19 United States District Judge

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28