In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 . Case No. 23-cv-03440-EKL (SVK) IN RE GOOGLE GENERATIVE AI ORDER GRANTING COPYRIGHT LITIGATION ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL Re: Dkt. Nos. 238, 241, 244 12 Before the Court are three administrative motions related to the Parties’ recent joint discovery submissions: Plaintiffs have filed two administrative motions to consider whether certain of Google’s materials should be sealed, (Dkts. 238, 244), and Google has filed an administrative motion to consider whether certain of Plaintiffs’ materials should be sealed, (Dkt.

16 241). As required by Civ. L.R. 79-5(f), the Parties have filed statements in support of sealing where necessary. See Dkts. 245, 260, 263. Plaintiffs have not opposed any of Google’s requests.

18 Having considered the Parties’ submissions and the relevant law, the Court finds good cause to GRANT the motions to seal as follows: Document Text to be Sealed Basis for Sealing / Court Ruling 21 Parties’ Joint Highlighted portions The redacted information contains confidential Discovery Letter at ECF pages: information about the proprietary datasets that Brief Regarding Google assembled, including information about 23 Datasets 3 their creation and composition. This information 5 is not generally known to the public or Google’s 24 [Dkt. 238-2] 11-12 competitors. Public disclosure of such fn. 7 confidential development and research 25 information could cause competitive harm to Google, and could also damage Google’s standing with its existing and potential content 27 partners and impact ongoing negotiations with these partners regarding the rights and terms Document Text to be Sealed Basis for Sealing / Court Ruling Google’s operations.

2 Parties’ Joint Chart The first dataset See basis for sealing Dkt. 238-2, above. named in Plaintiff’s [Dkt. 238-3] proposed compromise (column 3), as highlighted on pages and 4.

Exhibit 2 to Joint Entire document Although sealing of entire documents is Letter Brief – disfavored (see Civ. L.R. 79-5(a) (parties must Plaintiffs’ Excerpts take care to “avoid wherever possible sealing of Deposition entire documents (as opposed to merely Transcript redacting the truly sensitive information in a 8 document).”)), here, the document is already [Dkt. 238-4] merely an excerpt of the complete deposition.

The Court agrees that the excerpts submitted 10 predominantly if not entirely contain confidential information about the proprietary datasets that 11 Google assembled, including information about their creation and composition, as well as references to their internal code names. This 13 information is not generally known to the public or Google’s competitors. Public disclosure of 14 such confidential development and research information could cause competitive harm to 15 Google, and could also damage Google’s standing with its existing and potential content partners and impact ongoing negotiations with 17 these partners regarding the rights and terms governing the use of various materials in 18 Google’s operations. Accordingly, considering the document’s submission relates to a discovery 19 dispute only, the Court finds good cause.

Exhibit 3 to Joint Entire document See basis for sealing Dkt. 238-4, above.

Letter Brief – 21 Defendant’s Excerpts of 22 Deposition Transcript [Dkt. 238-5] Exhibit A to Joint Highlighted portions The Court agrees that there is at least good cause 25 Letter Brief – at timestamps: to seal Plaintiff McLennan’s email addresses “to Excerpts of protect [her] privacy interest and to prevent 26 Deposition 15:05:20 exposure to harm or identity theft.” Benedict v. Transcript of 15:05:39 Hewlett-Packard Co., No. 13-cv-00119-LHK, 27 Connie McLennan 15:05:55 – 15:06:15 2014 WL 233827, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, Parties’ Joint Highlighted portions | The redacted information contains confidential 2 Discovery Letter at ECF pages: information about Google’s proprietary datasets, Brief Regarding as well as training and filtering techniques 3 Clawback 3 relating to its large language models. This Challenges 6 information is not generally known to the public 4 or Google’s competitors. Public disclosure of 5 [Dkt 244-2] such confidential development and research information could cause competitive harm to 6 Google, and could also damage Google’s standing with its existing and potential content 7 partners and impact ongoing negotiations with these partners regarding the rights and terms 8 governing the use of various materials in 9 Google’s operations.

Exhibit A to the Entire Document This entire document is Google’s privilege log 10 Parties’ Joint for the documents relevant to this dispute. It Discovery Letter contains confidential information about legal 1] Brief Regarding considerations related to the training of Google’s Clawback large language models. This information is not 12 Challenges generally known to the public or Google’s 2B competitors. Public disclosure of such Dkt. 244-3 confidential development and research Y 14 information could cause competitive harm to Google, and could also damage Google’s 15 standing with its existing and potential content partners and impact ongoing negotiations with A 16 these partners regarding the rights and terms 17 governing the use of various materials in Google’s operations. Moreover, the public has Z 18 limited interest in the privilege log as it does not 19 relate to the merits of this dispute.

The Clerk of Court shall maintain Dkts. 238-2—5, 241-1 and 244-2—3 under seal.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 10, 2025 26 SUSAN VAN KEULEN United States Magistrate Judge