Rodriguez v. Google LLC

District Court, N.D. California·Decided January 3, 2024·No. 3:20-cv-04688·Unknown

Opinion

ANIBAL RODRIGUEZ, et al., Case No. 20-cv-04688-RS Plaintiffs, v. ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO GOOGLE LLC, SEAL Defendant.

In this privacy action, Plaintiffs and Defendant (Google) have filed an omnibus motion to seal various portions of materials related to the parties’ class certification and Daubert briefing. Specifically, the parties request to seal portions of briefing related to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification, expert reports and related appendices, as well as Google’s Daubert Motion and related appendices. For the reasons below, the parties’ omnibus motion to seal is granted in part and denied in part. There is a strong presumption in favor of allowing public access when deciding whether materials should be sealed. See Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011). A request to seal must be narrowly tailored. Civ. L. R. 79-5(c)(3). The Ninth Circuit articulates two tests to determine whether a record may be sealed, the “compelling reason” standard or the “good cause” exception. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. a motion is “dispositive,” the compelling reasons standard applies. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1095. The Ninth Circuit has not yet decided if a motion to certify class is dispositive or non- dispositive. Santos v. TWC Admin. LLC, No. CV 13–04799 MMM, 2014 WL 12703020 at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 27, 2014). Districts in the Ninth Circuit generally treat motions for class certification as non-dispositive. Id. However, a motion for class certification can be dispositive where “denial of class status means that the stakes are too low for the named plaintiffs to continue the matter.” Id. (quoting Prado v. Bush, 221 F.3d 1266, 1274 (11th Cir. 2000). Where a litigant presents compelling reasons to seal material, the court must then balance the interests of the public and the party seeking sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096–97 (9th Cir. 2016). This balancing test involves such factors as the public’s interest in understanding the functioning of the judicial process and the volume of material sought to be sealed. See Zakinov v. Ripple Labs, Inc., No. 18-cv-6753, 2023 WL 5280193 at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2023). “The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. Google requests to seal what it characterizes as commercially sensitive information, internal code names, and non-public employee email addresses. Google asserts that it seeks to seal excerpts of internal studies and research because they contain “competitively sensitive materials.” 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 competitor. No. 12cv3000 AJB (DHB), 2014 WL 690410 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2014). However, much of the information Google seeks to seal will not actually harm its competitive standing and, unlike in Algarin, simply reflects the opinions of Plaintiffs’ experts, resulting in no danger of “improper use by competitors who may circumvent expending their own resources in obtaining information at [Google’s] expense.” Id. at *4. Google also asserts the records it seeks to seal contain business information that might harm their “competitive standing” or “become a vehicle for improper use” such that those compelling reasons outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure. See In re Elec. Arts, Inc. 298 F.App’x 568 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations omitted). Plaintiffs oppose sealing some of 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 adequately shown “compelling reasons” warranting the sealing of the records it selects. However, for others, preventing disclosure will impact information necessary to calculate Plaintiffs’ monetary damages, and many records Google seeks to seal are high level summaries that go directly to Plaintiffs’ claims. In addition, some of the records go directly to the public interest in disclosure and are not outweighed by any compelling reasons. The request to seal excerpts that reveals Plaintiffs’ private information is granted. Dkt. 338. As to the Google’s sealing request, the tables below outline which portions of the records may be sealed. No pages, paragraphs, or records may be sealed in their entirety unless stated otherwise. If the table reads “may be sealed only,” then the parties must seal only the word or short phrase that corresponds with that description, not the entire sentence or paragraph (unless, of course, the entire sentence or paragraph corresponds with that description). The following records attached to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification (Dkt. 315) may be sealed: Exhibit No. Bates No. / Pages with Designations Parts to be sealed Exhibit 1 GOOG-RDGZ00117318 All columns except “Summary” Exhibit 2 GOOG-RDGZ-00209974 Internal terms may be sealed only GOOG-RDGZ-00209975 Employee PII may be sealed only GOOG-RDGZ-00209976 Employee PII may be sealed only Exhibit 5 GOOG-RDGZ-00144762 Internal strategy GOOG-RDGZ-00144763 Internal processes GOOG-RDGZ-00144764 Internal processes Exhibit No. Bates No. / Pages with Designations Parts to be sealed GOOG-RDGZ-00144767 Internal processes Exhibit 7 GOOG-RDGZ-00024709 Employee PII may be sealed only GOOG-RDGZ-00024710 Employee PII may be sealed only GOOG-RDGZ-00024711 Employee PII may be sealed only Exhibit 10 GOOG-RDGZ-00161367 Internal processes GOOG-RDGZ-00161373 Internal processes GOOG-RDGZ-00161378 Internal processes GOOG-RDGZ-00161384 Internal processes GOOG-RDGZ-00161385 Internal processes GOOG-RDGZ-00161392 Internal processes GOOG-RDGZ-00161393 Internal terms GOOG-RDGZ-00161395 Internal terms may be sealed only GOOG-RDGZ-00161396 Internal processes GOOG-RDGZ-00161397 Internal processes GOOG-RDGZ-00161398 Internal processes GOOG-RDGZ-00161399 Internal terms may be sealed only GOOG-RDGZ-00161401 Internal terms may be sealed only GOOG-RDGZ-00161406 Internal processes GOOG-RDGZ-00161408 Internal processes GOOG-RDGZ-00161410 Internal terms may be sealed only GOOG-RDGZ-00161411 Internal processes GOOG-RDGZ-00161412 Internal terms GOOG-RDGZ-00161414 Internal processes GOOG-RDGZ-00161417 Internal processes GOOG-RDGZ-00161418 Internal processes GOOG-RDGZ-00161419 Internal processes Exhibit No. Bates No. / Pages with Designations Parts to be sealed GOOG-RDGZ-00161420 Internal terms Exhibit 11 212:16 – 212:21 Internal processes 213:8 – 213:9 Internal processes 214:10 – 214:14; Internal processes 214:18 – 214:21; 214:23 – 214:25 215:1 – 215:5; I n ternal processes 215:9 – 215:10; 215:15 – 215:24 216:2 – 216:4 Internal processes 217:3 – 217:6; Internal processes 217:8 – 217:15 Exhibit 15 GOOG-RDGZ-00052784 Employee PII may be sealed only GOOG-RDGZ-00052785 Internal terms may be sealed only GOOG-RDGZ-00052787 Internal terms may be sealed only GOOG-RDGZ-00052788 Internal terms may be sealed only GOOG-RDGZ-00052790 Internal strategy GOOG-RDGZ-00052791 Internal strategy GOOG-RDGZ-00052792 Internal terms may be sealed only GOOG-RDGZ-00052793 Internal terms may be sealed only GOOG-RDGZ-00052794 Internal strategy GOOG-RDGZ-00052795 Internal strategy GOOG-RDGZ-00052797 Internal strategy GOOG-RDGZ-00052798 Internal strategy GOOG-RDGZ-00052799 Internal processes Internal strategy GOOG-RDGZ-00052801 Internal strategy GOOG-RDGZ-00052805 Internal processes Exhibit No. Bates No. / Pages with Designations Parts to be sealed GOOG-RDGZ-00052806 Internal processes GOOG-RDGZ-000

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

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

Rodriguez v. Google LLC (Rodriguez v. Google LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)