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 ON MOTIONS TO SEAL 6 v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 186, 188 GOOGLE LLC, 8 Defendant.

9 Now before the Court are Google’s Administrative Motions to File Documents Under Seal (Dkt. 186, 188) seeking to seal portions of the parties’ May 11, 2021 and May 12, 2021 Joint Discovery Letter Briefs (Dkt. 187, 189).

12 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 14 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 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 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: 5 Court’s Ruling Document Sought to be on Motion to Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling 6 Sealed Seal Joint Letter Brief re Additional GRANTED as to Narrowly tailored to protect Google ESI Custodians (Dkt. 187) redacted portions at confidential and proprietary 3:15, 6:8, 6:10 information regarding Google employees and their roles and 9 responsibilities within Google as they relate to internal, proprietary 10 Google services.

Exhibit C (Dkt. 187-3) GRANTED as to Narrowly tailored to protect 11 redacted portions at confidential and proprietary pp. 1, 2 information regarding Google employees and their roles and 13 responsibilities within Google as they relate to internal, proprietary 14 Google services.

Joint Letter Brief re Additional GRANTED as to Narrowly tailored to protect 30(b)(6) Deposition (Dkt. 189) redacted portions at highly confidential and 16 1:4-5, 1:19, 1:20- proprietary information regarding 22, 1:23-24, 1:25, Google’s internal systems and 17 2:3, 2:4, 2:5, 2:9, operations, including details 2:25, 2:26, 2:27, related to the various types of 18 4:11-12, 4:15-16, identifiers/cookies Google uses 4:25-27, 5:2-3, 5:4, internally and their proprietary 5:9, 5:10, 5:12-14, functions, the various types of 20 5:15-16 data logs maintained by Google, including the information 21 contained in those log and the cost in man-hours to properly 22 separate out the requested data, and the role and responsibilities of its employee as they relate to 24 internal, proprietary Google services.

25 Exhibit A (Dkt. 189-1) GRANTED as to Narrowly tailored to protect redacted portions at highly confidential and 26 2:8-9, 2:12, 2:13, proprietary information regarding 2:17, 3:2-3 Google’s internal systems and operations, including details 1 identifiers / cookies Google uses internally and their proprietary > functions.

Exhibit B (Dkt. 189-2) DENIED Google has submitted two 3 WITHOUT unredacted versions of Exhibit B PREJUDICE (Dkt. 188-8 and 188-9, i.e., 4 Exhibits F and G to the 5 Declaration of Viola Trebicka submitted in support of Google’s 6 motion to seal) with different proposed redactions. The 7 declaration does not describe or explain Exhibits F and G. Within 8 7 days of the date of this order, 9 Google must file either (1) corrected proposed redacted and 10 unredacted versions of Exhibit B along with a proposed order; or 11 (2) an explanation of the existing unredacted versions of Exhibit B (1 (Dkt. 188-8 and 188-9).

SO ORDERED.

14 || Dated: May 25, 2021

16 Seesom yar 17 SUSAN VAN KEULEN United States Magistrate Judge Z 18