In re Google Assistant Privacy Litigation

District Court, N.D. California·Decided October 17, 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 GOOGLE’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 10 GOOGLE LLC, et al., UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ 11 Defendants. MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND SUPPORTING 12 DECLARATIONS AND EXHIBITS 13 [Re: ECF No. 271]

14 15 Before the Court is Defendants Google LLC and Alphabet Inc.’s (collectively “Google”) 16 administrative motion to file under seal portions of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion 17 for Class Certification (“Opposition”) and supporting declarations and exhibits. See ECF No. 271. 18 The Court has considered the motion and supporting declaration. For the following reasons, the 19 motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 20 I. LEGAL STANDARD 21 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 22 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 23 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 24 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are 25 “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of 26 “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 27 1101–102 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed 1 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local 2 Rule 79-5. That rule requires that the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a 3 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that 4 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive 5 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1)(i). The rule also requires the moving 6 party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” 7 Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1)(ii). 8 II. DISCUSSION 9 This Court previously determined “that the compelling reasons standard applies to motions 10 to seal documents relating to class certification.” Adtrader, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 17-CV- 11 07082-BLF, 2020 WL 6391210, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2020). 12 Google contends that the information it seeks to seal includes confidential and highly 13 sensitive proprietary and commercial information about (1) the operation of Google Assistant; (2) 14 competitively sensitive business opportunities and risks; and (3) details of Google’s understanding 15 of the profits or losses associated with Google Assistant. See Beaufays Decl. 12, ECF 95-1. 16 Google seeks to file this information under seal because public disclosure would result in 17 significant competitive harm to Google by giving third parties, including other companies who 18 make similar technology, insight into confidential and sensitive aspects of Google’s development 19 of Google Assistant and the financial implications of that development. Id. Plaintiffs do not 20 oppose Google’s request. 21 The Court finds that Google has met the “compelling reasons” standard for sealing 22 technical information about the operation of Google Assistant and financial information 23 concerning Google’s business opportunities and risks and profits and losses because release of the 24 information would threaten Google’s competitive interests. See In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. 25 App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (ordering sealing where documents could be used “‘as sources of 26 business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing’”) (quoting Nixon v. 27 Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)); see also In re Koninklijke Philips Pat. Litig., 1 to seal information concerning “technical product operation”); In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17- 2 CV-0108-GPC-MDD, 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017). 3 Review of the information Google seeks to seal reveals that some of it does not appear to 4 be competitively sensitive. The Court therefore fines that Google has not met the compelling 5 reasons standard for sealing this information. 6 The Court rules as follows on the documents Google seeks to have sealed: 7 Exhibit No. & Document Portions to Seal Ruling 8 ECF No. 9 Exhibit AA Defendants’ Opposition Highlighted portions of GRANTED, as top Google’s to Plaintiffs’ Motion for the document containing confidential 10 Administrative Class Certification and highly sensitive Motion to File proprietary and 11 Under Seal commercial information about (1) the operation 12 ECF No. of Google Assistant; (2) 13 271-2 business opportunities and risks; and (3) details 14 of Google’s understanding of the 15 profits or losses associated with Google 16 Assistant. 17 Exhibit AB to Ex. B to the Declaration Document DENIED as overbroad, Google’s of Sunita Bali in Support as Google has not 18 Administrative of Defendants’ narrowly tailored its Motion to File Opposition to Plaintiffs’ sealing request to 19 Under Seal Motion for Class competitively sensitive Certification or otherwise sealable 20 ECF No. information. 21 271-3 (Summary Chart) Exhibit AC to Ex. 1 to the Declaration Document GRANTED, as 22 Google’s of Sunita Bali in Support containing confidential Administrative of Defendants’ and highly sensitive 23 Motion to File Opposition to Plaintiffs’ proprietary and 24 Under Seal Motion for Class commercial information Certification about the operation of 25 ECF No. Google Assistant. 271-4 (GOOG-ASST- 26 03026959) Exhibit AD to Ex. 2 to the Declaration Document GRANTED, as 27 Google’s of Sunita Bali in Support containing confidential Motion to File Opposition to Plaintiffs’ proprietary and 1 Under Seal Motion for Class commercial information 2 Certification about the operation of ECF No. Google Assistant. 3 271-5 (GOOG-ASST- 03026660) 4 Exhibit AE to Ex. 3 to the Declaration Document GRANTED, as Google’s of Sunita Bali in Support containing confidential 5 Administrative of Defendants’ and highly sensitive 6 Motion to File Opposition to Plaintiffs’ proprietary and Under Seal Motion for Class commercial information 7 Certification about the operation of Google Assistant. 8 ECF No. (GOOG-ASST- 271-6 03029199) 9 Exhibit AF to Ex. 4 to the Declaration Document GRANTED, as 10 Google’s of Sunita Bali in Support containing confidential Administrative of Defendants’ and highly sensitive 11 Motion to File Opposition to Plaintiffs’ proprietary and Under Seal Motion for Class commercial information 12 Certification about the operation of ECF No. Google Assistant. 13 271-7 (GOOG-ASST- 14 03034181) Exhibit AG to Ex. 6 to the Declaration Document GRANTED, as 15 Google’s of Sunita Bali in Support containing confidential Administrative of Defendants’ and highly sensitive 16 Motion to File Opposition to Plaintiffs’ proprietary and 17 Under Seal Motion for Class commercial information Certification about the operation of 18 ECF No. Google Assistant. 271-8 (GOOG-ASST- 19 03047476) Exhibit AH to Ex. 7 to the Declaration Document GRANTED, as 20 Google’s of Sunita Bali in Support containing confidential 21 Administrative of Defendants’ and highly sensitive Motion to File Opposition to Plaintiffs’ proprietary and 22 Under Seal Motion for Class commercial information Certification about the operation of 23 ECF No. Google Assistant. 271-9 (GOOG-ASST- 24 03047477) 25 Exhibit AI to Ex.

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)