In re Google RTB Consumer Privacy Litigation

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN RE GOOGLE RTB CONSUMER Case No. 21-cv-02155-YGR (VKD) PRIVACY LITIGATION ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE 9 MOTION TO SEAL 10 Re: Dkt. Nos. 403, 407 13 The parties filed a joint letter brief regarding a discovery dispute as to defendant Google’s clawback of four documents on the basis of attorney-client privilege and work product protection claims. See Dkt. No. 404. In connection with the dispute, plaintiffs filed exhibits provisionally under seal, accompanied by an administrative motion to consider whether materials Google designated “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” should remain under seal. Dkt. No. 403. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3) Google filed a response and declaration. Dkt. No. 407.

20 There is a strong presumption in favor of access by the public to judicial records and documents accompanying dispositive motions that can be overcome only by a showing of “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

24 However, the presumption does not apply equally to a motion addressing matters that are only “tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 26 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied sub nom. FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 137 S. Ct. 27 38 (2016). A litigant seeking to seal documents or information in connection with such a motion Id. at 1098-99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80.

2 Google requests that portions of Exhibit A to the joint letter brief (Dkt. No. 404-1) be sealed, and that Exhibits B through D to the joint letter brief be sealed in their entirety. Dkt. No. || 407 at 2. Google’s request concerns information submitted in connection with a discovery dispute. The underlying discovery dispute does not address the merits of the parties’ claims or || defenses, and the Court therefore applies the “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c).

7 The portions that Google seeks to seal from Exhibit A contain names and email addresses of current and former Google employees and document custodians. Dkt. No. 407-1 44. Google || argues that “public disclosure of these employees’ personal information could subject them to || unsolicited contact from the public or harassment.” Dkt. No. 407 at 3-4. Google also seeks to seal 11 Exhibits B through D in their entirety. These exhibits contain information about Google’s internal || business practices, technical details related to product design, confidential code names, internal 13 meeting notes, and/or names of Google employees. Dkt. No. 407 §[ 5, 6. Google says that this || information is unknown to the public or its competitors, and if it were made public, it could 15 generally cause competitive harm. See Dkt. No. 407 at 4-6. a 16 The Court agrees and finds that good cause exists to seal the following material: M

404-2 through 404-4) 1 A version of Exhibit A with the sealed portions of the document redacted has already been || filed on the public docket (Dkt. No. 407-2), and Exhibits B through D are already sealed on the 23 public docket. Accordingly, the Court requires no further action from the parties.

24 IT IS SO ORDERED.

25 Dated: March 17, 2023 , ee □ 07 Uigiuian®, Mu □□□□□□□ VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI 28 United States Magistrate Judge