Brown v. Google LLC

Opinion

3 4 CHASOM BROWN, et al., Case No. 20-cv-03664-LHK (SVK)

5 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE 6 v. MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

7 GOOGLE LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 139 8 Defendant.

9 Now before the Court is Google’s Administrative Motions to File Documents Under Seal 10 (Dkt. 139) seeking to seal portions of the parties’ April 23, 2021 Joint Discovery Letter Brief 11 (Dkt. 140). 12 Courts recognize a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, 13 including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 14 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 15 (1978)). A request to seal court records therefore starts with a “strong presumption in favor of 16 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 17 court records depends on the purpose for which the records are filed with the court. A party 18 seeking to seal court records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the 19 underlying cause of action” must demonstrate “compelling reasons” that support secrecy. Ctr. For 20 Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016). For records attached to 21 motions that re “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of the case,” the lower 22 “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) applies. Id.; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. A party 23 moving to seal court records must also comply with the procedures established by Civil Local 24 Rule 79-5. 25 Here, the “good cause” standard applies because the information the parties seek to seal 26 was submitted to the Court in connection with a discovery-related motion, rather than a motion 27 1 these documents under different standards or in a different context. Having considered the 2 motions to seal, supporting declarations, and the pleadings on file, and good cause appearing, the 3 Court ORDERS as follows: 4 5 Document Court’s Ruling on 6 Sought to be Motion to Seal Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling Sealed 7 oint Discovery GRANTED as to redacted [Narrowly tailored to protect highly confidential anc Statement, Joint portions at 4:11-15, 4:17, [proprietary information regarding highly sensitive 8 Statement Regarding 4:18-19, 4:27, 5:10, 5:14 {features of Google’s internal systems and lass Member operations, including details related to the various 9 Identification (Chart A types of unauthenticated identifiers/cookies Google # P6) ses internally and their proprietary functions, that 10 Google maintains as confidential in the ordinary course of its business and is not generally known to he public or Google’s competitors. 12 13 oint Discovery GRANTED as to redacted [Narrowly tailored to protect highly confidential anc = Statement, Chart B portions at 13 (P6, proprietary information regarding highly sensitive Plaintiffs RFP 10), 15-16 {features of Google’s internal systems and S (P9, Plaintiffs RFP 86), —_ joperations, including details related to the various 15 16-17 (P9, Plaintiffs RFP types of unauthenticated identifiers/cookies Google 87), 18 (P9, Plaintiffs RFP juses internally and their proprietary functions, that 16 92), 20 (P9, Plaintiffs RFP |Google maintains as confidential in the ordinary 128), 21-22 (P9, Plaintiffs |course of its business and is not generally known to 17 RFP 129), 23 (P9, he public or Google’s competitors. 5 oe 7 18 Plaintiffs RFP 130) 19 oint Discovery GRANTED as to redacted | Narrowly tailored to protect information Statement, Chart C portions at pages 30-32 concerning details of Plaintiffs’ private browsing 20 (Interrogatory No. 2), 36- | and personal email addresses, which Plaintiffs 37 (Interrogatory No. 5) maintain is confidential and not generally known 21 to the public. 22 SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: May 4, 2021 24 25 S vi K ( 26 SUSAN VAN KEULEN United States Magistrate Judge 28