In re Google Assistant Privacy Litigation

District Court, N.D. California·Decided July 15, 2022·No. 5:19-cv-04286·Unknown

Opinion

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

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE 9 v. MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL 10 GOOGLE LLC, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 206, 211 11 Defendants.

12 Before the Court are several administrative motions to file under seal materials associated 13 with discovery disputes in this case. Dkt. 206, 211; see also Dkt. 210. 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. 206; see also Dkt. 210

8 Court’s Ruling on Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling 9 Document Motion to Seal 10 June 28, 2022 GRANTED as to: Confidential and proprietary commercial Discovery Letter Highlighted portions information about (1) details of Google’s 11 Brief (ECF No. on page 2 understanding of the profits or losses 12 206-3) associated with Google Assistant; and (2) Google’s considerations in making research 13 and development decisions associated with 14 Google Assistant. 15 GRANTED as to: Confidential and proprietary commercial 16 Highlighted portions information about (1) the operation of Google on page 3 Assistant; and (2) Google’s considerations in 17 making research and development decisions 18 associated with Google Assistant. 19 GRANTED as to: Confidential and proprietary commercial Highlighted portions information about the operation of Google 20 on page 4 Assistant. 21 GRANTED as to: Confidential and proprietary commercial 22 Highlighted portions information about details of Google’s on page 5 understanding of the profits or losses 23 associated with Google Assistant. 24 GRANTED as to: Confidential and proprietary commercial 25 Highlighted portions information about details of Google’s 26 on pages 2-3 of understanding of the profits or losses Exhibit A associated with Google Assistant 27 1 2. Dkt. 211 2 D { Court’s Ruling on Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling 3 ocumen Motion to Seal 4 ||| 6/30/22 Discovery | GRANTED as to: Confidential and proprietary commercial 5 Order Highlighted portions | information about details of Google’s of the Order shown __| understanding of the profits or losses 6 in Exhibit A to Dkt. | associated with Google Assistant. 211 7 8 SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: July 15, 2022 10 11 Ss vi ( (1 SUSAN VAN KEULEN 13 United States Magistrate Judge

© 15

Z 18 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

In re Google Assistant Privacy Litigation, (N.D. Cal. 2022).

In re Google Assistant Privacy Litigation (In re Google Assistant Privacy Litigation) — 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)