Brown v. Google LLC

N.D. California

Brown v. Google LLC

DecidedApril 5, 2021

Docket4:20-cv-03664

StatusUnknown

This text of Brown v. Google LLC (Brown v. Google LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown v. Google LLC, (N.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CHASOM BROWN, et al., Case No. 20-cv-03664-LHK (SVK)

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE 9 v. MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

10 GOOGLE LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 118 11 Defendant.

12 Now before the Court is Google’s Administrative Motions to File Documents Under Seal 13 (Dkt. 118) seeking to seal portions of the parties’ March 23, 2021 Joint Discovery Letter Brief 14 (Dkt. 119). 15 Courts recognize a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, 16 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 18 (1978)). A request to seal court records therefore starts with a “strong presumption in favor of 19 access.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The standard for overcoming the presumption of public access to 20 court records depends on the purpose for which the records are filed with the court. A party 21 seeking to seal court records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the 22 underlying cause of action” must demonstrate “compelling reasons” that support secrecy. Ctr. For 23 Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016). For records attached to 24 motions that re “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of the case,” the lower 25 “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) applies. Id.; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. A party 26 moving to seal court records must also comply with the procedures established by Civil Local 27 1 Here, the “good cause” standard applies because the information the parties seek to seal 2 || was submitted to the Court in connection with a discovery-related motion, rather than a motion 3 || that concerns the merits of the case. The Court may reach different conclusions regarding sealing 4 || these documents under different standards or in a different context. Having considered the 5 motions to seal, supporting declarations, and the pleadings on file, and good cause appearing, the 6 || Court ORDERS as follows: 7 8 a Court’s Ruling ought to be on Motion to Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling 9 ealed Seal Joint Letter Brief Regarding Google’s (GRANTED as to Narrowly tailored to protect 10 || |ESI Preservation redacted portions at —_ confidential technical information 3:17, 3:20, 3:21, 3:22, |regarding various types of data logs 4:24-26, 4:27 maintained by Google, including the = 12 size and other attributes of those logs and the cost for suspending retention 13 periods for those logs. SO ORDERED.

15 Dated: April 5, 2021

Sum vel SUSAN VAN KEULEN 18 United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CHASOM BROWN, et al., Case No. 20-cv-03664-LHK (SVK)

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE 9 v. MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

10 GOOGLE LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 118 11 Defendant.

12 Now before the Court is Google’s Administrative Motions to File Documents Under Seal 13 (Dkt. 118) seeking to seal portions of the parties’ March 23, 2021 Joint Discovery Letter Brief 14 (Dkt. 119). 15 Courts recognize a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, 16 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 18 (1978)). A request to seal court records therefore starts with a “strong presumption in favor of 19 access.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The standard for overcoming the presumption of public access to 20 court records depends on the purpose for which the records are filed with the court. A party 21 seeking to seal court records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the 22 underlying cause of action” must demonstrate “compelling reasons” that support secrecy. Ctr. For 23 Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016). For records attached to 24 motions that re “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of the case,” the lower 25 “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) applies. Id.; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. A party 26 moving to seal court records must also comply with the procedures established by Civil Local 27 1 Here, the “good cause” standard applies because the information the parties seek to seal 2 || was submitted to the Court in connection with a discovery-related motion, rather than a motion 3 || that concerns the merits of the case. The Court may reach different conclusions regarding sealing 4 || these documents under different standards or in a different context. Having considered the 5 motions to seal, supporting declarations, and the pleadings on file, and good cause appearing, the 6 || Court ORDERS as follows: 7 8 a Court’s Ruling ought to be on Motion to Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling 9 ealed Seal Joint Letter Brief Regarding Google’s (GRANTED as to Narrowly tailored to protect 10 || |ESI Preservation redacted portions at —_ confidential technical information 3:17, 3:20, 3:21, 3:22, |regarding various types of data logs 4:24-26, 4:27 maintained by Google, including the = 12 size and other attributes of those logs and the cost for suspending retention 13 periods for those logs. SO ORDERED.

15 Dated: April 5, 2021

Sum vel SUSAN VAN KEULEN 18 United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Debbie Foltz, Consumer Action United Policyholders Texas Watch, Intervenors, and Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors-Appellants. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation California Institute of Medical Research & Technology, Inc., a Foreign Corporation Dba Comprehensive Medical Review Ralph Householder Steven Becker v. April Jean Ho Jim Mathis, Plaintiffs-Intervenors. Debbie Foltz, and Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors-Appellants v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, and California Institute of Medical Research & Technology, Inc., a Foreign Corporation Dba Comprehensive Medical Review Ralph Householder Steven Becker v. April Jean Ho Jim Mathis, Plaintiffs-Intervenors. Debbie Foltz, April J. Ho Jim Mathis Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors, and Consumer Action United Policy-Holders Texas Watch, Intervenors-Appellants v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, and Steven Becker

331 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)

Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC

809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Brown v. Google LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-google-llc-cand-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack