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. 316, 318]

11 Defendant.

12

13 Before the Court are two administrative motions:

14 (1) Point Financial, Inc.’s (“PFI”) administrative motion to consider whether its reply in

15 support of its motion to modify preliminary injunction and supporting exhibits should

16 be sealed. ECF No. 316.

17 (2) PFI’s administrative motion to consider whether refiled Exhibit 1 to PFI’s reply in

18 support of second motion for leave to amend counterclaim should be sealed. ECF

19 No. 318.

20 For the reasons set forth below, both administrative motions are GRANTED to the extent Google

21 requests redactions.

22 I. LEGAL STANDARD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 1092, 1099–101 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–80.

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19 5(f)(3). A designating party’s failure to file a statement or declaration may result in the unsealing

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

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

22 II. ECF NO. 316

23 PFI has filed an administrative motion to consider whether its reply in support of its

24 motion to modify the preliminary injunction and supporting exhibits should be sealed. ECF

25 No. 316. Google has submitted a statement in support of sealing. ECF No. 321. While PFI

26 “contends none of these materials warrant sealing,” ECF No. 316 at 1, PFI does not oppose

27 Google’s request.

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

2 litigation.” ECF No. 321 at 2. Google contends the disclosure of this information would reveal

3 Google’s confidential technology and in turn “weaken the competitive advantage Google

4 maintains in the marketplace.” Id. The second category of assertedly sealable information is the

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

6 litigation. Id. According to Google, disclosing this information would reveal its “strategic

7 decision-making with respect to its contractual relationships” and give other market actors unfair

8 leverage in competing against or negotiating with Google. Id.

9 As the sealing request relates to reply in support of a motion to modify a preliminary

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

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

12 1099–101. The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the materials Google identifies,

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

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

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

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

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

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

19 2019) (finding compelling reasons for sealing “information that, if published, may harm . . .

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

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

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

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

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.

4 315 / 322 PFI’s Reply in Support Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing

of Motion to Modify 7:5. confidential business

5 Preliminary Injunction information, the release of

which could harm Google.

6

315-1 / 322 Exhibit 2 to PFI’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing

7 Reply in Support of 3:23; confidential business

Motion to Modify 51:13. information, the release of

8 Preliminary Injunction which could harm Google.

315-1 / 322 Exhibit 3 to PFI’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing

9 Reply in Support of 2:12; confidential business

Motion to Modify 20:22-23. information, the release of

10 Preliminary Injunction which could harm Google.

11 315-1 / 322 Exhibit 4 to PFI’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing

Reply in Support of 19:4, 16; confidential business

12 Motion to Modify 20:15, 23; information, the release of

Preliminary Injunction 29:4, 6, 19, 22; which could harm Google.

13

30:7, 18, 20.

14

III. ECF NO. 318

15 PFI has filed an administrative motion to consider whether Exhibit 1 to its reply in support

16 of its second motion for leave to amend counterclaim should be sealed. ECF No. 318. Google has

17 submitted a statement in support of sealing. ECF No. 321. While PFI “contends none of these

18 materials warrant sealing,” ECF No. 318 at 1, PFI does not oppose Google’s request.

19 Google separates its sealing request into two categories. The first category consists of

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

21 litigation.” ECF No. 321 at 2. Google contends the disclosure of this information would reveal

22 Google’s confidential technology and in turn “weaken the competitive advantage Google

23 maintains in the marketplace.” Id. The second category of assertedly sealable information is the

24 identity of one of the vendors that manufacture, test, and assemble the chip at issue in this

25 litigation. Id. According to Google, disclosing this information would reveal its “strategic

26 decision-making with respect to its contractual relationships” and give other market actors unfair

27 leverage in competing against or negotiating with Google. Id.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public ECF Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling

15

No. /

16 Sealed

ECF. No.

17 317 / 323 Exhibit 1 to PFI’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing

Reply in Support of 166:11, 14-15, 20. confidential business

18 Second Motion for information, the release of

Leave to Amend which could harm Google.

19 Counterclaim

20 IV. ORDER

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

22 (1) PFI’s administrative motion to consider whether its reply in support of its motion to

23 modify preliminary injunction and supporting exhibits should be sealed, ECF No. 316,

24 is GRANTED to the extent Google requests redactions. PFI SHALL refile a complete

25 public version of its reply brief and accompanying exhibits on or before July 27, 2026.

26 (2) PFI’s administrative motion to consider whether refiled Exhibit 1 to PFI’s reply in

27 support of second motion for leave to amend counterclaim should be sealed, ECF

] complete public version of its reply brief and accompanying exhibits on or before

2 July 27, 2026.

3 Dated: July 20, 2026

Moi LABSON FREEMAN

5 United States District Judge

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