Rodriguez v. Google LLC

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California
DecidedJanuary 3, 2024
Docket3:20-cv-04688
StatusUnknown

This text of Rodriguez v. Google LLC (Rodriguez v. Google LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rodriguez v. Google LLC, (N.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 ANIBAL RODRIGUEZ, et al., 10 Case No. 20-cv-04688-RS Plaintiffs, 11 v. ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 12 DENYING IN PART MOTION TO GOOGLE LLC, SEAL 13 Defendant. 14

15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 In this privacy action, Plaintiffs and Defendant (Google) have filed an omnibus motion to 17 seal various portions of materials related to the parties’ class certification and Daubert briefing. 18 Specifically, the parties request to seal portions of briefing related to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class 19 Certification, expert reports and related appendices, as well as Google’s Daubert Motion and 20 related appendices. For the reasons below, the parties’ omnibus motion to seal is granted in part 21 and denied in part. 22 II. LEGAL STANDARD 23 There is a strong presumption in favor of allowing public access when deciding whether 24 materials should be sealed. See Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011). 25 A request to seal must be narrowly tailored. Civ. L. R. 79-5(c)(3). The Ninth Circuit articulates 26 two tests to determine whether a record may be sealed, the “compelling reason” standard or the 27 “good cause” exception. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1 a motion is “dispositive,” the compelling reasons standard applies. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d 2 at 1095. The Ninth Circuit has not yet decided if a motion to certify class is dispositive or non- 3 dispositive. Santos v. TWC Admin. LLC, No. CV 13–04799 MMM, 2014 WL 12703020 at *2 4 (C.D. Cal. May 27, 2014). Districts in the Ninth Circuit generally treat motions for class 5 certification as non-dispositive. Id. However, a motion for class certification can be dispositive 6 where “denial of class status means that the stakes are too low for the named plaintiffs to continue 7 the matter.” Id. (quoting Prado v. Bush, 221 F.3d 1266, 1274 (11th Cir. 2000). Where a litigant 8 presents compelling reasons to seal material, the court must then balance the interests of the public 9 and the party seeking sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096–97 10 (9th Cir. 2016). This balancing test involves such factors as the public’s interest in understanding 11 the functioning of the judicial process and the volume of material sought to be sealed. See Zakinov 12 v. Ripple Labs, Inc., No. 18-cv-6753, 2023 WL 5280193 at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2023). “The 13 mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or 14 exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” 15 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. 16 III. DISCUSSION 17 Google requests to seal what it characterizes as commercially sensitive information, 18 internal code names, and non-public employee email addresses. Google asserts that it seeks to seal 19 excerpts of internal studies and research because they contain “competitively sensitive materials.” 20 Google invokes Algarin v. Maybelline as an example of a case where a study that contained consumer research and sales data and was sealed because it could be subject to improper use by a 21 competitor. No. 12cv3000 AJB (DHB), 2014 WL 690410 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2014). However, 22 much of the information Google seeks to seal will not actually harm its competitive standing and, 23 unlike in Algarin, simply reflects the opinions of Plaintiffs’ experts, resulting in no danger of 24 “improper use by competitors who may circumvent expending their own resources in obtaining 25 information at [Google’s] expense.” Id. at *4. 26 Google also asserts the records it seeks to seal contain business information that might 27 1 harm their “competitive standing” or “become a vehicle for improper use” such that those 2 compelling reasons outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure. See In re Elec. Arts, Inc. 298 3 F.App’x 568 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations omitted). Plaintiffs oppose sealing some of 4 Google’s records on the basis that they may affect the rights of absent class members. The motion to seal is granted in part and denied in part. For some records, Google has 5 adequately shown “compelling reasons” warranting the sealing of the records it selects. However, 6 for others, preventing disclosure will impact information necessary to calculate Plaintiffs’ 7 monetary damages, and many records Google seeks to seal are high level summaries that go 8 directly to Plaintiffs’ claims. In addition, some of the records go directly to the public interest in 9 disclosure and are not outweighed by any compelling reasons. The request to seal excerpts that 10 reveals Plaintiffs’ private information is granted. Dkt. 338. As to the Google’s sealing request, the 11 tables below outline which portions of the records may be sealed. No pages, paragraphs, or records 12 may be sealed in their entirety unless stated otherwise. If the table reads “may be sealed only,” 13 then the parties must seal only the word or short phrase that corresponds with that description, not 14 the entire sentence or paragraph (unless, of course, the entire sentence or paragraph corresponds 15 with that description). 16 The following records attached to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification (Dkt. 315) may 17 be sealed: 18 Exhibit No. Bates No. / Pages with Designations Parts to be sealed 19 Exhibit 1 GOOG-RDGZ00117318 All columns except “Summary” 20 Exhibit 2 GOOG-RDGZ-00209974 Internal terms may be 21 sealed only 22 GOOG-RDGZ-00209975 Employee PII may be sealed only 23 GOOG-RDGZ-00209976 Employee PII may be sealed 24 only Exhibit 5 GOOG-RDGZ-00144762 Internal strategy 25 GOOG-RDGZ-00144763 Internal processes 26 GOOG-RDGZ-00144764 Internal processes 27 1 Exhibit No. Bates No. / Pages with Designations Parts to be sealed GOOG-RDGZ-00144767 Internal processes 2 Exhibit 7 GOOG-RDGZ-00024709 Employee PII may be sealed 3 only 4 GOOG-RDGZ-00024710 Employee PII may be sealed only 5 GOOG-RDGZ-00024711 Employee PII may be sealed 6 only 7 Exhibit 10 GOOG-RDGZ-00161367 Internal processes GOOG-RDGZ-00161373 Internal processes 8 GOOG-RDGZ-00161378 Internal processes 9 GOOG-RDGZ-00161384 Internal processes 10 GOOG-RDGZ-00161385 Internal processes 11 GOOG-RDGZ-00161392 Internal processes 12 GOOG-RDGZ-00161393 Internal terms 13 GOOG-RDGZ-00161395 Internal terms may be sealed only 14 GOOG-RDGZ-00161396 Internal processes 15 GOOG-RDGZ-00161397 Internal processes 16 GOOG-RDGZ-00161398 Internal processes GOOG-RDGZ-00161399 Internal terms may be 17 sealed only 18 GOOG-RDGZ-00161401 Internal terms may be sealed only 19 GOOG-RDGZ-00161406 Internal processes 20 GOOG-RDGZ-00161408 Internal processes 21 GOOG-RDGZ-00161410 Internal terms may be 22 sealed only GOOG-RDGZ-00161411 Internal processes 23 GOOG-RDGZ-00161412 Internal terms 24 GOOG-RDGZ-00161414 Internal processes 25 GOOG-RDGZ-00161417 Internal processes 26 GOOG-RDGZ-00161418 Internal processes 27 GOOG-RDGZ-00161419 Internal processes 1 Exhibit No. Bates No.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp.
658 F.3d 1150 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Rodriguez v. Google LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-google-llc-cand-2024.