Brown v. Google LLC

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CHASOM BROWN, et al., Case No. 20-cv-03664-YGR (SVK) 6 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE 7 v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL GOOGLE LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 398 9 Defendant.

10 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to file under seal materials associated with a discovery dispute in this case. Dkt. 398; see also Dkt. 407.

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 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 discovery-related motions, rather than a motion that 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: 4 7 en Court’s Ruling ee ought to be on Motion to Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling 5 ealed Seal Joint Letter Brief Re: GRANTED as to Narrowly tailored to protect || Plaintiff's Request for an edacted portions at |Google’s confidential and Additional Google pages 1-4 proprietary information regarding Custodian (Dkt. 399) features of Google’s internal systems g and operations, including details related to internal projects, 9 identifiers, metrics, and logs, and heir proprietary functionalities, that 10 Google maintains as confidential in ul he ordinary course of its business and is not generally known to the = 2 public or Google’s competitors.

Such confidential and proprietary 13 information reveals Google’s a internal strategies, and business tices f ting and practices for operating an 5 maintaining many of its services. = Public disclosure of such 16 onfidential and proprietary information could affect Google’s = 17 ompetitive standing as competitors may alter their systems and practices 18 relating to competing products. It 19 Imay also place Google at an increased risk of cyber security 20 hreats, as third parties may seek to se the information to compromise 21 Google’s internal practices.

22 SO ORDERED.

23 Dated: February 22, 2022 Susi veil SUSAN VAN KEULEN United States Magistrate Judge