Brown v. Google LLC

District Court, N.D. California·Decided January 6, 2022·No. 4:20-cv-03664·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 CHASOM BROWN, et al., Case No. 20-cv-03664-LHK (SVK)

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE 9 v. MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL Re: Dkt. Nos. 291, 354, 356, 360, 361 11 Defendant.

12 Before the Court are several administrative motions to file under seal materials associated 13 with discovery disputes in this case. Dkt. 291, 354, 356, 360, 361; see also Dkt. 303, 376. 14 Courts recognize a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, 15 including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 16 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 17 (1978)). A request to seal court records therefore starts with a “strong presumption in favor of 18 access.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 19 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The standard for overcoming the presumption of public access to court records depends on the purpose for which the records are filed with the court. A party 20 seeking to seal court records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the 21 underlying cause of action” must demonstrate “compelling reasons” that support secrecy. Ctr. For 22 Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016). For records attached to 23 motions that re “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of the case,” the lower 24 “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) applies. Id.; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. A party 25 moving to seal court records must also comply with the procedures established by Civil Local 26 Rule 79-5. 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 discovery-related motions, rather than a motion that 3 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 1. Dkt. 291 8 Court’s Ruling Document Sought to be on Motion to Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling 9 Sealed Seal Motion Seeking Relief (Dkt. 291-2) GRANTED as Narrowly tailored to protect 10 to redacted confidential technical information portions at: regarding the operation of Google’s 11 products and systems, including the 12 Page 1 Lines 6- various types of Google’s internal 11 identifiers/cookies and their 13 Page 2 Lines proprietary functions, the various 25-27 types of logs maintained by Google, 14 Page 3 Lines 1- and information contained in those 4, 21-22 logs, that Google maintains as 15 Page 5 Lines 17, confidential in the ordinary course of 16 23 its business and is not generally Page 8 Lines 3- known to the public or Google’s 17 5 competitors. Page 9 Lines 11, 18 16 Page 10 Lines 19 9-11 20 Page 11 Lines 14-17 21 Page 12 Lines 1, 11, 13 22 Page 14 Lines 17, 19, 22-27 23 Page 15 Lines 24 1-10

25 Exhibit E to the Declaration of Erika GRANTED as Narrowly tailored to protect Nyborg-Burch in support of the to redacted confidential technical information 26 Motion Seeking Relief (Dkt. 291-7) portions at: regarding the operation of Google’s 27 Pages 1-2. products and systems, including the various types of Google’s internal proprietary functions that Google 1 maintains as confidential in the 2 ordinary course of its business and is not generally known to the public or 3 Google’s competitors. Exhibit F to the Declaration of GRANTED as Narrowly tailored to protect 4 Erika Nyborg-Burch in support to the document confidential technical information of the Motion Seeking Relief in its entirety regarding sensitive features of 5 (Dkt. 291-8) Google’s operations and consumer 6 data, including Google’s internal data storage infrastructure, that 7 Google maintains as confidential in the ordinary course of its business 8 and is not generally known to the public or Google’s competitors. 9 Exhibit H to the Declaration of GRANTED as Narrowly tailored to protect 10 Erika Nyborg-Burch in support to redacted confidential technical information of the Motion Seeking Relief portions at: regarding the operation of Google’s 11 (Dkt. 291-9) products and systems, including the Pages 2, 4 various types of Google’s internal 12 identifiers/cookies and their proprietary functions, the various 13 types of logs maintained by Google, 14 that Google maintains as confidential in the ordinary course of 15 its business and is not generally known to the public or Google’s 16 competitors. 17 Exhibit I to the Declaration of GRANTED as Narrowly tailored to protect Erika Nyborg-Burch in support to redacted confidential technical information 18 of the Motion Seeking Relief portions at: regarding the operation of Google’s (Dkt. 291-10) products and systems, including the 19 Page 2 various types of Google’s internal identifiers/cookies and their 20 proprietary functions, the various 21 types of logs maintained by Google, that Google maintains as 22 confidential in the ordinary course of its business and is not generally 23 known to the public or Google’s competitors. 24 Exhibit J to the Declaration of GRANTED as Narrowly tailored to protect 25 Erika Nyborg-Burch in support to the document confidential technical information of the Motion Seeking Relief in its entirety regarding the operation of Google’s 26 (Dkt. 291-11) products and systems, including the various types of Google’s internal 27 identifiers/cookies and their maintains as confidential in the 1 ordinary course of its business and is 2 not generally known to the public or Google’s competitors. 3 Exhibit K to the Declaration of GRANTED as Narrowly tailored to protect (1) Erika Nyborg-Burch in support to redacted confidential technical information 4 of the Motion Seeking Relief portions at: regarding the operation of Google’s (Dkt. 291-12) products and systems, including the 5 Pages 1-3, 5-12 various types of Google’s internal 6 identifiers/cookies and their proprietary functions, the various 7 types of databases maintained by Google, that Google maintains as 8 confidential in the ordinary course of its business and is not generally 9 known to the public or Google’s 10 competitors and (2) Plaintiffs’ sensitive information. 11 Exhibit L to the Declaration of GRANTED as Narrowly tailored to protect (1) Erika Nyborg-Burch in support to redacted confidential technical information 12 of the Motion Seeking Relief portions at: regarding the operation of Google’s (Dkt. 291-13) products and systems, including the 13 Pages 2-9 various types of Google’s internal 14 identifiers/cookies and their proprietary functions, the various 15 types of databases maintained by Google, that Google maintains as 16 confidential in the ordinary course of 17 its business and is not generally known to the public or Google’s 18 competitors and (2) Plaintiffs’ sensitive information. 19

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

Brown v. Google LLC, (N.D. Cal. 2022).

Brown v. Google LLC (Brown v. Google LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.
435 U.S. 589 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Knight v. Spencer
447 F.3d 6 (First Circuit, 2006)
Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)