1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 ANIBAL RODRIGUEZ, et al., 10 Case No. 20-cv-04688-RS Plaintiffs, 11 v. ORDER GRANTING IN PART, 12 DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO GOOGLE LLC, SEAL 13 Defendant. 14

15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 Various motions to seal remain pending on the docket and are adjudged as follows. 17 II. LEGAL STANDARD 18 There is a strong presumption in favor of allowing public access when deciding whether 19 materials should be sealed. See Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp.,

(9th Cir. 2011). 20 This presumption stems from the citizenry’s “general right to inspect and copy public records and 21 documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435

, 597 & n.7 (1978). It also serves the purpose of “promoting the public’s understanding 23 of the judicial process and of significant public events.” Valley Broad. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court—D.

F2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986). 25 In this court, to overcome the strong presumption in favor of public access, a request to 26 seal must be, inter alia, narrowly tailored. Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). More generally, in the courts of 27 the Ninth Circuit, a party seeking to seal court records must satisfy one of two standards. Where 1 less exacting ‘good cause’ standard.” See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC,

1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016). If the material is related to the merits, however, a higher burden 3 applies, and sealing is only proper if the court finds “a compelling reason and articulate[s] the 4 factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. 5 of Honolulu,

, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006) (“The mere fact that the production of 6 records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will 7 not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.”). Where a litigant presents compelling 8 reasons to seal material, supported by articulated facts, the court must then balance the interests of 9 the public and the party seeking sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096–97. This 10 balancing test involves such factors as the public’s interest in understanding the functioning of the 11 judicial process and the volume of material sought to be sealed. See Zakinov v. Ripple Labs, Inc., 12 No. 18-cv-6753-PJH,

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2023). 13 III. DISCUSSION 14 A. Dkt No. 454 15 In this motion, Plaintiffs seek to seal personal information in their Rule 26(a)(1) 16 disclosures. The motion is granted. See Nursing Home Pension Fund v. Oracle Corp.,

3232267, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2007) (“an individual’s privacy interest” is a compelling reason 18 to seal a document). Public understanding of the case will not be impeded because Plaintiffs’ 19 addresses and phone numbers are irrelevant to any material questions. 20 B. Dkt No. 469 21 Here, Plaintiffs ask to seal personal information about would-be class members who 22 sought exclusion from the certified classes. As explained above, the motion is granted. 23 C. Dkt. No. 497 Pursuant to the court’s April 23, 2025 Order, Google submitted a statement explaining its 24 requests to seal various portions of the briefing and exhibits filed in connection with the parties’ 25 Daubert motions and the motions about whether Google’s CEO would testify at trial. 26 Because some of this evidence appears likely to be used at trial, the motion to seal is 27 1 preliminarily denied without prejudice. To the extent either party successfully introduces any of 2 the cited documents into evidence, such evidence would not warrant sealing given that it will have 3 been deemed relevant and more probative than prejudicial. Any of these documents that do not 4 come into evidence, however, would seem to be less than necessary to any public understanding of the case. For now, the materials remain under seal; within two weeks of any final jury verdict, 5 parties are instructed to file any of the documents that were entered into evidence on the public 6 docket; any documents that did not amount to evidence may remain sealed thereafter.1 7 D. Dkt. No. 532 8 Google also moves to seal various portions of exhibits it filed in connection with its 9 motions in limine. Aside from the personally identifying email addresses, nothing in the attached 10 exhibits warrants addressing at this juncture. As stated above, the materials may remain sealed 11 pending their introduction into evidence. Anything that becomes evidence must be filed on the 12 public docket within two weeks of any final jury verdict, and anything that does not become 13 evidence may remain sealed as filed. 14 E. Dkt. No. 546 15 Google next asks the court to consider whether certain material Plaintiffs designated as 16 confidential must be sealed. Plaintiffs having not responded, no compelling reasons appears to 17 seal these materials. Nor do any of the identified sections appear worthy of sealing. They shall be 18 filed on the public docket. 19 F. Dkt. No. 562 20 In another sealing motion, Google aims to seal materials Plaintiffs included in opposition 21 to motions in limine that Google filed. The individual email addresses and code names in these 22 materials may remain sealed and/or redacted, but any of the other material which Google seeks to 23 seal will not be kept sealed if it is evidence in the trial. Any such exhibits that become evidence 24 must be filed on the public docket within two weeks of any final jury verdict. 25 26

27 1 This ruling addresses pending motions at Dkt. Nos. 470, 485. 1 2 || ITISSO ORDERED. 3 4 || Dated: August 18, 2025 5 ICHARD SEEBORG 6 Chief United States District Judge 4 8 9 10 11 a 12

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER ON SEALING MOTIONS CASE No. 20-cv-04688-RS