In re Google Assistant Privacy Litigation

District Court, N.D. California·Decided October 17, 2022·No. 5:19-cv-04286·Unknown

Opinion

ASIF KUMANDAN, et al., Case No. 19-cv-04286-BLF

Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND v. DENYING IN PART GOOGLE’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE GOOGLE LLC, et al., UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ Defendants. MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND SUPPORTING DECLARATIONS AND EXHIBITS [Re: ECF No. 271]

Before the Court is Defendants Google LLC and Alphabet Inc.’s (collectively “Google”) administrative motion to file under seal portions of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (“Opposition”) and supporting declarations and exhibits. See ECF No. 271. The Court has considered the motion and supporting declaration. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101–102 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5. That rule requires that the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1)(i). The rule also requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1)(ii). This Court previously determined “that the compelling reasons standard applies to motions to seal documents relating to class certification.” Adtrader, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 17-CV- 07082-BLF, 2020 WL 6391210, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2020). Google contends that the information it seeks to seal includes confidential and highly sensitive proprietary and commercial information about (1) the operation of Google Assistant; (2) competitively sensitive business opportunities and risks; and (3) details of Google’s understanding of the profits or losses associated with Google Assistant. See Beaufays Decl. 12, ECF 95-1. Google seeks to file this information under seal because public disclosure would result in significant competitive harm to Google by giving third parties, including other companies who make similar technology, insight into confidential and sensitive aspects of Google’s development of Google Assistant and the financial implications of that development. Id. Plaintiffs do not oppose Google’s request. The Court finds that Google has met the “compelling reasons” standard for sealing technical information about the operation of Google Assistant and financial information concerning Google’s business opportunities and risks and profits and losses because release of the information would threaten Google’s competitive interests. See In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (ordering sealing where documents could be used “‘as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing’”) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)); see also In re Koninklijke Philips Pat. Litig., to seal information concerning “technical product operation”); In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17- CV-0108-GPC-MDD, 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017). Review of the information Google seeks to seal reveals that some of it does not appear to be competitively sensitive. The Court therefore fines that Google has not met the compelling reasons standard for sealing this information. The Court rules as follows on the documents Google seeks to have sealed: Exhibit No. & Document Portions to Seal Ruling ECF No. Exhibit AA Defendants’ Opposition Highlighted portions of GRANTED, as top Google’s to Plaintiffs’ Motion for the document containing confidential Administrative Class Certification and highly sensitive Motion to File proprietary and Under Seal commercial information about (1) the operation ECF No. of Google Assistant; (2) 271-2 business opportunities and risks; and (3) details of Google’s understanding of the profits or losses associated with Google Assistant. Exhibit AB to Ex. B to the Declaration Document DENIED as overbroad, Google’s of Sunita Bali in Support as Google has not Administrative of Defendants’ narrowly tailored its Motion to File Opposition to Plaintiffs’ sealing request to Under Seal Motion for Class competitively sensitive Certification or otherwise sealable ECF No. information. 271-3 (Summary Chart) Exhibit AC to Ex. 1 to the Declaration Document GRANTED, as Google’s of Sunita Bali in Support containing confidential Administrative of Defendants’ and highly sensitive Motion to File Opposition to Plaintiffs’ proprietary and Under Seal Motion for Class commercial information Certification about the operation of ECF No. Google Assistant. 271-4 (GOOG-ASST- 03026959) Exhibit AD to Ex. 2 to the Declaration Document GRANTED, as Google’s of Sunita Bali in Support containing confidential Motion to File Opposition to Plaintiffs’ proprietary and Under Seal Motion for Class commercial information Certification about the operation of ECF No. Google Assistant. 271-5 (GOOG-ASST- 03026660) Exhibit AE to Ex. 3 to the Declaration Document GRANTED, as Google’s of Sunita Bali in Support containing confidential Administrative of Defendants’ and highly sensitive Motion to File Opposition to Plaintiffs’ proprietary and Under Seal Motion for Class commercial information Certification about the operation of Google Assistant. ECF No. (GOOG-ASST- 271-6 03029199) Exhibit AF to Ex. 4 to the Declaration Document GRANTED, as Google’s of Sunita Bali in Support containing confidential Administrative of Defendants’ and highly sensitive Motion to File Opposition to Plaintiffs’ proprietary and Under Seal Motion for Class commercial information Certification about the operation of ECF No. Google Assistant. 271-7 (GOOG-ASST- 03034181) Exhibit AG to Ex. 6 to the Declaration Document GRANTED, as Google’s of Sunita Bali in Support containing confidential Administrative of Defendants’ and highly sensitive Motion to File Opposition to Plaintiffs’ proprietary and Under Seal Motion for Class commercial information Certification about the operation of ECF No. Google Assistant. 271-8 (GOOG-ASST- 03047476) Exhibit AH to Ex. 7 to the Declaration Document GRANTED, as Google’s of Sunita Bali in Support containing confidential Administrative of Defendants’ and highly sensitive Motion to File Opposition to Plaintiffs’ proprietary and Under Seal Motion for Class commercial information Certification about the operation of ECF No. Google Assistant. 271-9 (GOOG-ASST- 03047477) Exhibit AI to Ex. 8 to the Declaration Document GRANTED, as Google’s of Sunita Bali in Support containing confidential Administrative of Defendants’ and highly sensitive Motion to File Opposition to Plaintiffs’ proprietary and Under Seal Motion for Class commercial information ECF No. Google Assistant. 271-10 (GOOG-ASST- 03047471) Exhibit AJ to Ex. 9 to the Declaration Document GRANTED, as Google’s of Sunita Bali in Support containing confidential Administrative of Defendants’ and highly sensitive Motion to File Opposition to Plaintiff

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)
Barnett v. Anchor Co.
298 F. 23 (Seventh Circuit, 1924)