May v. Google LLC

Opinion

1 2 6 7 JUDY MAY, et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-01314-BLF

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S 10 GOOGLE LLC, et al., MATERIAL SHOULD BE SEALED 11 Defendants. [Re: ECF No. 122]

12 Before the Court is Defendants’ Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Plaintiff’s 13 Material Should be Sealed. ECF 122. Plaintiff filed a declaration in support of the sealing the 14 materials identified in Defendants’ motion. ECF 123. For the reasons described below, Defendants’ Administrative Motion to Consider Whether 15 Plaintiff’s Material Should be Sealed is GRANTED. 16 I. LEGAL STANDARD 17 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 18 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 19 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 20 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 21 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 22 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 23 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 24 of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 25 access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1100–01 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. 26 Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits 27 1 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for 2 access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” (internal 3 quotations omitted)). Parties moving to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet 4 the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. This standard 5 requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the 6 information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 7 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated 8 by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. 9 Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 10 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local 11 Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a 12 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that 13 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). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5 14 requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” 15 Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable 16 material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 17 Further, when a party seeks to seal a document because it has been designated as 18 confidential by another party, the filing party must file an Administrative Motion to Consider 19 Whether Another Party’s Material Should be Sealed. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f). In that case, the filing 20 party need not satisfy the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(1). Instead, the 21 party who designated the material as confidential must, within seven days of the motion’s filing, 22 file a statement and/or declaration that meets the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79- 23 5(f)(3). A designating party’s failure to file a statement or declaration may result in the unsealing 24 of the provisionally sealed document without further notice to the designating party. Id. Any party can file a response to that declaration within four days. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(4). 25 II. DISCUSSION 26 Because the sealing motion concerns an exhibit in connection with Defendants’ Motion to 27 1 standard. See Nursing Home Pension Fund v. Oracle Corp., No. 01 Civ. 00988-MJJ, 2007 WL 2 3232267, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2007). 3 Defendants’ sealing motion identifies messages that contains Plaintiffs personal 4 information, including Plaintiff's address. ECF 122 at 2. Defendants take no position on their 5 sealing request. Jd. Plaintiff requests the sealing of this information because it is “necessary to 6 protect her family’s privacy and to prevent the use of their information to commit identity theft.” 7 ECF 123 at 3. The Court finds that Plaintiff has established compelling reasons to seal 8 information “to keep personal information confidential to protect an individual’s privacy interest 9 and to prevent exposure to harm or identity theft.” Nursing Home Pension Fund, No. 01 Civ. 10 00988-MJJ, 2007 WL 3232267, at *2 (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 11 1122, 1134 (9th Cir. 2003)). Il. ORDER 13 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 14 Defendants’ Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Plaintiff's Material Should Be 3 15 Sealed at ECF 122 is GRANTED. The exhibit filed at ECF 122 SHALL remain under seal. 16

= 17 Dated: September 17, 2025 18 fconfinccnar BETH LABSON FREEMAN 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28