In re Google Assistant Privacy Litigation

District Court, N.D. California·Decided September 16, 2022·No. 5:19-cv-04286·Unknown

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 IN PART AND 9 v. DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 10 GOOGLE LLC, et al., DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 11 Defendants. [Re: ECF No. 223]

12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ administrative motion seeking to seal documents submitted 14 with Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. See ECF No. 223. Defendants Google LLC and 15 Alphabet Inc. (together “Google”) submitted a statement in support. See ECF No. 226. Plaintiffs 16 did not respond to Defendants’ statement. For the reasons stated below, the motion is GRANTED 17 IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 18 I. LEGAL STANDARD 19 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and 20 documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 21 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 22 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, filings that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” 23 may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. 24 Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially 25 related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. 26 “Under the compelling reasons standard, a district court must weigh relevant factors, base 27 its decision on a compelling reason, and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on 1 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). “In general, compelling reasons sufficient to outweigh 2 the public's interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such court files 3 might . . . become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of records to gratify private spite, 4 promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Algarin v. 5 Maybelline, LLC, No. 12CV3000 AJB DHB, 2014 WL 690410, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2014) 6 (internal quotation marks omitted). “The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a 7 litigant's embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, 8 compel the court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Courts have found that a party 9 has demonstrated compelling reasons warranting sealing where “confidential business material, 10 marketing strategies, product development plans could result in improper use by business 11 competitors seeking to replicate [the company's] business practices and circumvent the time and 12 resources necessary in developing their own practices and strategies.” Algarin, 2014 WL 690410, 13 at *3. 14 Sealing motions filed in this district also must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of 15 sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). Under Civil 16 Local Rule 79-6(d), the submitting party must attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to 17 seal only the sealable material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is 18 sought to be sealed.” In addition, a party moving to seal a document in whole or in part must file a 19 declaration establishing that the identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). 20 “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as 21 confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Id. 22 Where the moving party requests sealing of documents because they have been designated 23 confidential by another party or a non-party under a protective order, the burden of establishing 24 adequate reasons for sealing is placed on the designating party or non-party. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e). The 25 moving party must file a proof of service showing that the designating party or non-party has been 26 given notice of the motion to seal. Id. “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative Motion to 27 File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration . . . establishing that all of the 1 responsive declaration . . . and the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal is denied, the 2 Submitting Party may file the document in the public record no earlier than 4 days, and no later than 3 10 days, after the motion is denied.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(2). 4 II. DISCUSSION 5 This Court follows numerous other district courts within the Ninth Circuit in concluding that 6 the compelling reasons standard applies to motions to seal documents relating to class certification. 7 See, e.g., Yan Mei Zheng v. Toyota Motor Corp., No. 17-CV-06591-BLF, 2019 WL 6841324, at *1 8 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2019); Wetzel v. CertainTeed Corp., No. C16-1160JLR, 2019 WL 1236859, at 9 *3 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 18, 2019) (“[S]ince Chrysler, district courts that have addressed the issue have 10 regularly found that the compelling reasons standard applies to motions to seal exhibits attached to 11 motions for class certification.”); McCurley v. Royal Seas Cruises, Inc., No. 17-CV-00986-BAS- 12 AGS, 2018 WL 3629945, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 31, 2018) (“[C]ourts apply the compelling reasons 13 standard to a motion to seal a document filed in connection with a motion for class certification.”); 14 In re Seagate Tech. LLC, 326 F.R.D. 223, 246 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (applying compelling reasons 15 standard to documents relating to class certification); Weisberg v. Takeda Pharm. U.S.A., Inc., No. 16 CV 18-784 PA (JCX), 2018 WL 6252458, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 3, 2018) (“Because the Motion for 17 Class Certification is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, the compelling reasons 18 standard applies in determining whether to grant the Application to Seal.”). 19 Plaintiffs move to file documents or portions of documents under seal as part of its motion 20 for class certification because Google has designated these documents as “Confidential” or “Highly 21 Confidential” pursuant to the parties’ protective order. See ECF No. 223 ¶¶ 5-7. Plaintiffs also state 22 that one of the documents contains proprietary analysis and study design.” Id. ¶ 6. 23 Google argues that compelling reasons exist for sealing portions of the submitted materials. 24 ECF No. 226, at 8. Google argues that portions of documents containing (1) information about the 25 operation of Google Assistant are sealable because, if disclosed, could be a source of non-public 26 technical and business information that competitors could use to harm Google’s competitive 27 standing; (2) details of business opportunities and risks are sealable because they contain technical 1 and provide an unfair advantage to competitors; and (3) information concerning the profits and 2 losses associated with Google Assistant are sealable because they contain sensitive, confidential 3 financial information that, if disclosed, could cause Google competitive harm. Id. at 8-9. Google 4 further argues that the portions of the documents Google seeks to seal are sealable because their 5 disclosure without context could cause harm to Google by providing an incomplete and misleading 6 picture of Google’s practices and capabilities. Id. at 9. 7 The Court finds that Google has demonstrated compelling reasons for sealing the portions 8 of documents as set forth below. 9 ECF No. Document Portions to Seal Result and Reasoning 10 ECF No. 223-3 Plaintiffs’ Highlighted GRANTED.

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)
Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)