Calhoun v. Google LLC

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PATRICK CALHOUN, et al., Case No. 20-cv-05146-LHK (SVK) 5 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN 6 v. PART MOTIONS TO SEAL GOOGLE LLC, Re: Dkt. Nos. 101, 108, 117, 119 8 Defendant.

9 Now before the Court are the parties’ Administrative Motions to File Documents Under Seal (Dkt. 101, 108, 117, and 119) seeking to seal certain materials submitted to the Court in connection with the parties’ joint letter brief and subsequent briefing on Google’s motion for a protective order (Dkt. 102, 109, 118, and 120).

13 Courts recognize a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 15 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). A request to seal court records therefore starts with a “strong presumption in favor of access.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 17 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The standard for overcoming the presumption of public access to court records depends on the purpose for which the records are filed with the court. A party seeking to seal court records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” must demonstrate “compelling reasons” that support secrecy. Ctr. For Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016). For records attached to motions that re “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of the case,” the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) applies. Id.; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. A party moving to seal court records must also comply with the procedures established by Civil Local Rule 79-5.

Here, the “good cause” standard applies because the information the parties seek to seal was submitted to the Court in connection with a discovery-related motion, rather than a motion that concerns the merits of the case. The Court may reach different conclusions regarding sealing these documents under different standards or in a different context. Having considered the motions to seal, supporting declarations, and the pleadings on file, and good cause appearing, the Court ORDERS as follows: 6 Court’s Ruling Document Sought to be on Motion to Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling 7 Sealed Seal Joint Letter Brief Regarding Dispute GRANTED as to Narrowly tailored to protect Concerning Google’s Motion for redacted portions at confidential technical information Protective Order 1:2-5, 1:26-2:2, 2:7-9, regarding the operation of Google’s 5:9 products, including the volume of 10 data collected in certain log files and retention periods applicable thereto.

11 Joint Letter Brief Regarding Dispute GRANTED as to Narrowly tailored to protect Concerning Google’s Motion for redacted portions at confidential technical information Protective Order 2:11-15, 3:7-8, 3:12- regarding the operation of Google’s 13, 4:26-28 products, including the nature of the data contained in certain log files.

14 Google’s Motion for a Protective DENIED WITHOUT The Proposed Order (Dkt. 108-2) Order PREJUDICE does not identify the page and line 15 number of the redacted information sought to be sealed. See Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(B) (requiring that proposed order “lists in table format each document or portion thereof 18 that is sought to be sealed”). Google may submit a corrected proposed 19 order with the missing information within 7 days of the date of this order.

21 Declaration of Andre Golueke DENIED WITHOUT The Proposed Order (Dkt. 108-2) PREJUDICE does not identify the page and line 22 number of the redacted information sought to be sealed. See Civil L.R. 23 79-5(d)(1)(B) (requiring that proposed order “lists in table format each document or portion thereof 25 that is sought to be sealed”). Google may submit a corrected proposed 26 order with the missing information within 7 days of the date of this 27 order.

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Google’s DENIED WITHOUT The Trebicka Declaration (Dkt. 122) Motion for a Protective Order PREJUDICE filed in support of the motion to seal 2 appears to seek sealing of a subset of information identified in Plaintiffs’ 3 proposed order (Dkt. 117-2) but Google does not submit an 4 alternative proposed order that identifies the page and line number of the redacted information sought to 6 be sealed. See Civil L.R. 79- 5(d)(1)(B) (requiring that proposed 7 order “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is 8 sought to be sealed”). Google may submit a corrected proposed order with the missing information within 10 7 days of the date of this order.

Declaration of Lesley Weaver in DENIED WITHOUT The Trebicka Declaration (Dkt. 122) Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to PREJUDICE filed in support of the motion to seal Google’s Motion for a Protective appears to seek sealing of a subset of Order information identified in Plaintiffs’ proposed order (Dkt. 117-2) but Google does not submit an 14 alternative proposed order that identifies the page and line number 15 of the redacted information sought to be sealed. See Civil L.R. 79- 5(d)(1)(B) (requiring that proposed 17 order “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is 18 sought to be sealed”). Google may submit a corrected proposed order 19 with the missing information within days of the date of this order.

Exhibit A to the Declaration of Lesley DENIED WITHOUT The Trebicka Declaration (Dkt. 122) Weaver in Support of Plaintiffs’ PREJUDICE filed in support of the motion to seal Opposition to Google’s Motion for a appears to seek sealing of a subset of Protective Order information identified in Plaintiffs’ proposed order (Dkt. 117-2) but 23 Google does not submit an alternative proposed order that identifies the page and line number 25 of the redacted information sought to be sealed. See Civil L.R. 79- 26 5(d)(1)(B) (requiring that proposed order “lists in table format each 27 document or portion thereof that is With the missing information within 2 7 days of the date of this order.

Declaration of Dr. Matthew Green in [DENIED WITHOUT |The Trebicka Declaration (Dkt. 122) Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to PREJUDICE filed in support of the motion to seal Google’s Motion for a Protective appears to seek sealing of a subset of Order information identified in Plaintiffs’ 5 proposed order (Dkt. 117-2) but Google does not submit an 6 alternative proposed order that identifies the page and line number 7 of the redacted information sought to be sealed. See Civil L.R. 79- 8 5(d)(1)(B) (requiring that proposed 9 order “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is 10 sought to be sealed”). Google may submit a corrected proposed order 11 with the missing information within days of the date of this order..

12 Google’s Reply in Support of Motion [DENIED WITHOUT |The proposed order (Dkt. 119-2) 13 for a Protective Order PREJUDICE does not identify the page and line number of the redacted information v 14 sought to be sealed. See Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(B) (requiring that 15 proposed order “lists in table format 2 each document or portion thereof a 16 that is sought to be sealed”). Google 17 may submit a corrected proposed 5 order with the missing information Z 18 within 7 days of the date of this order.

The documents or portions thereof as to which the Court has denied the motions to seal without prejudice shall remain under seal until the Court’s ruling with respect to Google’s submission of a corrected proposed order as outlined above or until expiration of the deadline to submit such a corrected proposed order if none is filed.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 5, 2021 26 Suse veut 27 SUSAN VAN KEULEN 28 United States Magistrate Judge