In re Google Assistant Privacy Litigation

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 ASIF KUMANDAN, et al., Case No. 19-cv-04286-BLF

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS 9 v. GOOGLE LLC AND ALPHABET INC.’S SEALING MOTIONS; 10 GOOGLE LLC, et al., GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ SEALING 11 Defendants. MOTION

12 [Re: ECF Nos. 168, 170, 174]

13 14 Before the Court are three sealing motions filed by the parties in the above-captioned action. 15 First, Defendants Google LLC and Alphabet Inc.’s (collectively, “Google”) filed two Motions to 16 Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed (ECF Nos. 168, 174), pertaining to 17 information filed with the parties’ Joint Stipulation for Entry of Consent Orders (ECF Nos. 167, 18 173). Second, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Consider Whether Defendants’ Material Should Be Sealed 19 (ECF No. 170), pertaining to information in Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion for Relief from Case 20 Management Schedule (ECF No. 171). All three motions are unopposed. 21 Based on the below reasoning, the Court GRANTS Google’s motions. Further, the Court 22 GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ motion. 23 I. LEGAL STANDARD 24 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and 25 documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 26 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 27 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are “more than 1 reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing 3 of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. 4 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local 5 Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a 6 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that 7 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive 8 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1)(i). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5 9 requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” 10 Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1)(ii). 11 Furthermore, when a party (the “Moving Party”) seeks to seal a document that has been 12 designated as confidential by another party or non-party (the “Designating Party”), the Moving Party 13 must file a Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed under Local 14 Rule 79-5(f). The Moving Party must file a motion “identify[ing] each document or portions thereof 15 for which sealing is sought.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(1). “Within 7 days of the motion’s filing, the 16 Designating Party must file a statement and/or declaration as described in [Civil Local 17 Rule 79-5(c)(1)].” Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3). “If any party wishes to file a response, it must do so no 18 later than 4 days after the Designating Party files its statement and/or declaration.” 19 Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(4). 20 II. DISCUSSION 21 Because the parties’ sealing motions pertain to a stipulation for entry of consent orders 22 related to document production and a motion regarding the case schedule, the Court finds that the 23 “good cause” standard applies. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097. 24 The Court rules as follows on the parties’ sealing motions: 25 26 27 Sealing Document Portions Decl. ISO Ruling 1 Motion Sought to Be Sought to Be Sealing 2 Sealed Sealed ECF No. 168, ECF No. 167, Highlighted GRANTED, as 3 Google’s Exs. A–H. personal email personally identifiable Motion to addresses of information. See 4 Consider non-parties Snapkeys, Ltd. v. Whether Steven Spurr Google LLC, 5 Another Party’s and Frank No. 19–CV–02658– 6 Material Aguiar and LHK, Should Be Plaintiffs Asif 2021 WL 1951250, 7 Sealed Kumandan, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Melissa Spurr, May 14, 2021). 8 Lourdes Galvan, 9 Eleeanna 10 Galvan, Edward 11 Brekhus, and Jon Hernandez 12 on page 2 of the exhibits. 13 ECF No. 170, Plaintiffs’ Highlighted Beaufays Decl., GRANTED as to the 14 Plaintiffs’ Administrative portions ECF No. 178 highlighted portions at Motion to Motion for at 3:14–19, (as to 3:14–19 and 4:1–5, as 15 Consider Relief from 3:25–3:26, highlighted confidential product Whether Case 4:1–5, 4:17–20. portions at development 16 Another Party’s Management 3:14–19, information the 17 Material Schedule, ECF 4:1–5). disclosure of which Should Be No. 171. could case Google 18 Sealed competitive harm. See In re Electronic Arts, 19 298 Fed.Appx. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008); 20 Kowalsky v. Hewlett- 21 Packard Co., No. 5:10–cv–02176– 22 LHK, 2012 WL 892427, at *2 23 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2012) (finding sealable 24 defendant’s 25 “confidential product testing and evaluation 26 process”); Netlist Inc. v. Smart Storage Sys. 27 Inc., Sealing Document Portions Decl. ISO Ruling 1 Motion Sought to Be Sought to Be Sealing 2 Sealed Sealed YGR (JSC), 2015 WL 3 13723141, at *2 (N.D. Cal. March 19, 2015) 4 (finding exhibits properly filed under 5 seal that discuss 6 “internal product development, the 7 disclosure of which could harm the 8 company”); see also In re Google Location 9 Hist. Litig., 10 514 F.Supp.3d 1147, 1162 (N.D. Cal. 2021). 11 DENIED, as to the 12 highlighted portions at 3:25–26 and 4:17–20, 13 since Google does not 14 request for these excerpts to be sealed. 15 ECF No. 174, ECF No. 173, Highlighted GRANTED, as Google’s Exs. A–H. personal email personally identifiable 16 Motion to addresses of information. See 17 Consider non-parties Snapkeys, Ltd. v. Whether Steven Spurr Google LLC, 18 Another Party’s and Frank No. 19–CV–02658– Material Aguiar and LHK, 19 Should Be Plaintiffs Asif 2021 WL 1951250, Sealed Kumandan, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 20 Melissa Spurr, May 14, 2021). 21 Lourdes Galvan, 22 Eleeanna Galvan, 23 Edward Brekhus, and 24 Jon Hernandez 25 on page 2 of the exhibits. 26 / / / 27 / / / I. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Google’s Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed 3 at ECF No. 168 is GRANTED; 4 2. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed 5 at ECF No. 170 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as outlined in the 6 table above. Since Plaintiffs have already filed a newly redacted version of their 4 Administrative Motion for Relief from Case Management Statement, which publicly 8 discloses the portions of the motion as to which the Court denies Plaintiffs’ sealing 9 motion, see ECF No. 177, the Court will not require Plaintiffs to file a newly redacted 10 version of the administrative motion; and 11 3. Google’s Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed 12 at ECF No. 174 is GRANTED. Dated: May 12, 2022 15 NV 16 BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge = 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28