Calhoun v. Google LLC

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PATRICK CALHOUN, et al., Case No. 20-cv-05146-YGR (SVK) 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE 9 v. UNDER SEAL 10 GOOGLE LLC, Re: Dkt. Nos. 653, 677, 698, 701 11 Defendant.

13 Before the Court are several administrative motions to file under seal materials associated with discovery disputes in this case. Dkt. 653, 677, 698, 701; see also Dkt. 721, 726.

15 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 17 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 20 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 1 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 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: 7 1. Dkt. 653 Document Court’s Ruling on Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling Sought to be Motion to Seal 10 Sealed March 17, 2022 GRANTED as to The information requested to be sealed contains 11 Hearing redacted portions at: Google’s confidential and proprietary information, Transcript including details related to Google’s internal 12 systems, projects, identifiers, logs, and their 7:13, 7:16, 7:25, 8:1, proprietary functions, as well as internal metrics, 13 8:9, 8:25, 9:10, 9:15- that Google maintains as confidential in the 14 17, 10:1, 31:7, ordinary course of its business and is not generally 31:16, 32:10, 35:5, known to the public or Google’s competitors. Such 15 39:7, 39:12, 39:17, confidential and proprietary information reveals 39:21, 40:3, 40:7, Google’s internal strategies, system designs, and 16 40:13, 40:22, 40:24, business practices for operating and maintaining 41:3, 48:6, 61:24, many of its services. Public disclosure of such 17 62:16, 62:25, 64:23- confidential and proprietary information could 18 24 affect Google’s competitive standing as competitors may alter their systems and practices 19 relating to competing products. It may also place Google at an increased risk of cybersecurity 20 threats, as third parties may seek to use the information to compromise Google’s internal practices relating to competing products.

23 2. Dkt. 677 Document Court’s Ruling on Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling 25 Sought to be Motion to Seal Sealed Plaintiffs’ DENIED Plaintiffs seek to seal information on the grounds Supplemental WITHOUT that Google has designated the information as Administrative PREJUDICE as to confidential under the protective order in this case.

Request in redacted portions at: Google has not filed a declaration demonstrating Response to Dkt. that the material is sealable, as required under No. 674 1:27, 2:21-22, 2:23- Civil Local Rule 79-5(f). There is therefore no 4 25, 2:27-3:2, 3:5, basis upon which to seal the material that is the 3:9, 3:13-19, 3:22- subject of this motion. Accordingly, the motion at 24 Dkt. 677 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

6 Google must submit the declaration required under Civil Local Rule 79-5(f) no later than June 28, 7 2022. Failure to submit the required declaration may result in denial of this motion to seal.

3. Dkt. 698 (see also Dkt. 721) 11 Document Court’s Ruling on Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling Sought to be Motion to Seal Sealed 13 Exhibit A to GRANTED as to the Narrowly tailored to protect confidential technical Plaintiffs’ highlighted portions information regarding sensitive features of 14 Statement (Plfs’ at: Google’s internal systems and operations, 4th 30(b)(6) including details related to internal projects, that 15 Notice) 6:1, 6:17, 6:19 Google maintains as confidential in the ordinary 16 course of its business and is not generally known to the public or Google’s competitors.

17 Exhibit B to GRANTED as to the Narrowly tailored to protect confidential technical Plaintiffs’ highlighted portions information regarding sensitive features of 18 Statement (re: at: Google’s internal systems and operations, Deposition of Vic including details related to internal projects, that Liu) Pages 1, 3 Google maintains as confidential in the ordinary 20 course of its business and is not generally known to the public or Google’s competitors.

4. Dkt. 701 (see also Dkt. 726) 23 Document Court’s Ruling on Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling Sought to be Motion to Seal 24 Sealed 25 Exhibit B to GRANTED as to the The information requested to be sealed contains Notice of Errata portions at: Google’s confidential and proprietary information 26 re Plaintiffs’ regarding sensitive features of Google’s internal Statement Pages 1-2 systems and operations, that Google maintains as 27 Pursuant to Court confidential in the ordinary course of its business I Exhibit B proprietary information reveals Google’s internal docketed at ECF strategies, system designs, and business practices 2 Nos. 698-5, 698- for operating and maintaining many of its services, 6, 699-2) and falls within the protected scope of the 3 Protective Order entered in this action. See Dkt. 61 at 2-3. Public disclosure of such confidential and 4 proprietary information could affect Google’s competitive standing as competitors may alter 5 . . . their systems and practices relating to competing 6 products. It may also place Google at an increased risk of cybersecurity threats, as third parties may 7 seek to use the information to compromise Google’s internal practices relating to competing 8 products.

10 SO ORDERED.

11 || Dated: June 21, 2022

14 SUSAN VAN KEULEN United States Magistrate Judge = 17 Z 18