Vedanti Licensing Limited, LLC v. Google LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 7 8 VEDANTI LICENSING LIMITED, LLC, Case No. 5:21-cv-01643-EJD

9 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 10 v.

11 GOOGLE LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 78 Defendant. 12

13 In connection with its motion for attorneys’ fees (Dkt. No. 79), Defendant Google LLC 14 (“Google”) seeks to file portions of its brief and the accompanying Declaration of Robert W. 15 Unikel (“the Unikel Declaration”) under seal. Dkt. No. 78. Having considered Google’s moving 16 papers, the Court denies the motion to seal. 17 “Historically, courts have recognized a general right to inspect and copy public records and 18 documents, including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 19 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted). If the court record is “more than 20 tangentially related to the merits of the case,” then there is a “strong presumption in favor of 21 access.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1102 (9th Cir. 2016); 22 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. However, if a litigant seeks to seal documents or information in 23 connection with a motion that is only tangentially related to the merits of the case, they need only 24 meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 25 1098–99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80. 26 Here, Google seeks to seal the amount of fees it seeks and the number of hours its counsel 27 worked. This information is only tangentially related to the merits of the case, therefore the good 1 cause standard applies. 2 Google asserts that revealing the amount of fees it seeks and the number of hours its 3 counsel worked on this case “would harm Google’s competitive standing if released publicly.” 4 || Dkt. No. 78 at 1. The only support for this argument appears in the Unikel Declaration: 5 Prospective plaintiffs would have information about Google’s litigation expenditures that could be used to Google’s disadvantage 6 in licensing and settlement negotiations. Competitors would have insight into amounts paid by Google for legal services that could be 7 used to Google’s disadvantage in competing for the retention of counsel. Prospective counsel would have information about the 8 rates Google is willing to pay for legal services and could use that information to demand payment of higher legal fees than Google 9 would otherwise have to pay. 10 || Dkt. No. 78-1 43. These arguments are entirely speculative in nature; Google provides no factual 11 support for these suppositions. Information concerning the going rates for attorneys in this || District is already widely available. See, e.g., Oomph Innovations LLC vy. Shenzhen Bolsesic

£ 13 || Elecs. Co. Ltd., No. 5:18-cv-05561-EJD, 2020 WL 5847505, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2020)

v 14 (listing cases describing reasonable rates). The Court further notes that Google has not sought to

15 seal such information in other cases where it has sought attorneys’ fees. See, e.g., Daniels v. Qa 16 Alphabet Inc., No. 5:20-cv-04687-VKD, Dkt. No. 39 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2021); Max Sound Corp.

= 17 v. Google, Inc., No. 14-cv-04412-EJD, 2017 WL 4536342 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2017). Google does

18 not cite to any cases where courts have sealed the amount of fees and number of hours in a fees 19 motion. No good cause exists for sealing the information as Google has requested. 20 Accordingly, Google’s administrative motion to file under seal is DENIED. Google shall 21 file an unredacted version of its motion and the Unikel Declaration on the public docket by 22 || August 9, 2021. 24 Dated: August 5, 2021 25 26 EDWARD J. DAVILA 27 United States District Judge 28 || Case No.: 5:21-cv-01643-EJD ORDER DENYING ADMIN. MOT. TO SEAL