In re Google RTB Consumer Privacy Litigation
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:21-cv-02155
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In re Google RTB Consumer Privacy Litigation: Judge DeMarchi ordered limited sealing of information about Google’s systems, data, and security practices.
Google and the plaintiffs in the litigation, as well as the public’s access to the identified court filings.
What happened
In re Google RTB Consumer Privacy Litigation involved requests to seal parts of filings connected to plaintiffs’ motion for contempt and sanctions over alleged destruction of evidence. Google sought sealing, while plaintiffs objected.
The court applied the less demanding “good cause” standard because the filings concerned discovery matters rather than the case’s merits. It found good cause to seal most of Google’s designated information, but excluded several portions and required narrow redactions.
Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi ordered the specified portions sealed, directed that two documents be refiled with compliant redactions by October 11, 2024, and ordered several docket entries placed fully under seal.
The detailed version
- In re Google RTB Consumer Privacy Litigation · No. 4:21-cv-02155
- Yvonne Rogers
- Sept. 30, 2024
Background
Plaintiffs filed a motion for contempt and sanctions concerning alleged spoliation, or destruction or loss, of evidence. Google opposed that motion. In connection with the filings, Google asked the court to seal selected portions of the documents. Plaintiffs filed the documents provisionally with redactions but stated that they did not agree that any information should be sealed.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial records connected to dispositive motions generally receive a strong presumption of public access that can be overcome only by compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings. But that presumption is weaker for matters only tangentially related to the merits. Because the discovery matters at issue did not address the merits of the parties’ claims or defenses, the court applied the “good cause” standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).
Court’s reasoning
Google argued that the materials contained highly sensitive data logs, data systems, user-identifier protection mechanisms, and technical details about its advertising products, data infrastructure, logs, and metrics. Google also argued that disclosure could increase cybersecurity risks and reveal internal strategies, system designs, and business practices.
The court agreed that good cause supported sealing most of the information Google identified. It found that, with a few exceptions, the proposed redactions were minimal and narrowly tailored. The court declined to seal certain information because it was not designated for sealing elsewhere in the record or did not reveal the highly sensitive information Google described.
Disposition
The court ordered the specified portions of the parties’ submissions sealed, subject to the listed exceptions. It stated that redacted versions of most documents were already available publicly. It directed Google to refile the remaining documents—Plaintiffs’ Motion and Exhibit A to the Levine Declaration—with redactions complying with the order no later than October 11, 2024. The Clerk was directed to place Docket Nos. 697, 697-1, 697-2, and 697-3 fully under seal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.