In re Google RTB Consumer Privacy Litigation

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 IN RE GOOGLE RTB CONSUMER Case No. 21-cv-02155-YGR (VKD) PRIVACY LITIGATION 8 ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE 10 Re: Dkt. Nos. 403, 407 11

12 13 The parties filed a joint letter brief regarding a discovery dispute as to defendant Google’s 14 clawback of four documents on the basis of attorney-client privilege and work product protection 15 claims. See Dkt. No. 404. In connection with the dispute, plaintiffs filed exhibits provisionally 16 under seal, accompanied by an administrative motion to consider whether materials Google 17 designated “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” should remain under 18 seal. Dkt. No. 403. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3) Google filed a response and 19 declaration. Dkt. No. 407. 20 There is a strong presumption in favor of access by the public to judicial records and 21 documents accompanying dispositive motions that can be overcome only by a showing of 22 “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 23 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 24 However, the presumption does not apply equally to a motion addressing matters that are only 25 “tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 26 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied sub nom. FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 137 S. Ct. 27 38 (2016). A litigant seeking to seal documents or information in connection with such a motion 1 Id. at 1098-99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80. 2 Google requests that portions of Exhibit A to the joint letter brief (Dkt. No. 404-1) be 3 sealed, and that Exhibits B through D to the joint letter brief be sealed in their entirety. Dkt. No. 4 407 at 2. Google’s request concerns information submitted in connection with a discovery 5 dispute. The underlying discovery dispute does not address the merits of the parties’ claims or 6 defenses, and the Court therefore applies the “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). 7 The portions that Google seeks to seal from Exhibit A contain names and email addresses 8 of current and former Google employees and document custodians. Dkt. No. 407-1 44. Google 9 argues that “public disclosure of these employees’ personal information could subject them to 10 unsolicited contact from the public or harassment.” Dkt. No. 407 at 3-4. Google also seeks to seal 11 Exhibits B through D in their entirety. These exhibits contain information about Google’s internal 12 business practices, technical details related to product design, confidential code names, internal 13 meeting notes, and/or names of Google employees. Dkt. No. 407 §[ 5, 6. Google says that this 14 information is unknown to the public or its competitors, and if it were made public, it could 3 15 generally cause competitive harm. See Dkt. No. 407 at 4-6. a 16 The Court agrees and finds that good cause exists to seal the following material: M

404-2 through 404-4) 20 1 A version of Exhibit A with the sealed portions of the document redacted has already been 92 filed on the public docket (Dkt. No. 407-2), and Exhibits B through D are already sealed on the 23 public docket. Accordingly, the Court requires no further action from the parties. 25 Dated: March 17, 2023 26 , ee □ 07 Uigiuian®, Mu □□□□□□□ VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI 28 United States Magistrate Judge