Hubbard v. Google LLC
- Susan Van Keulen
- 5:19-cv-07016
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Hubbard v. Google LLC, Magistrate Judge Van Keulen sealed limited identities in the amended complaint and ordered narrower public redactions.
The plaintiffs, Google LLC, YouTube, LLC, the identified customers and employees, and members of the public seeking access to the court filings.
What happened
In Hubbard v. Google LLC, the plaintiffs filed a sixth amended complaint and a comparison showing changes from their earlier complaint. Some information was redacted because Google and YouTube had designated it confidential under a court protective order.
Google asked the court to keep only limited information sealed: the identities of Google customers, a Google employee, and an employee of a Google customer. Google argued that sealing customer identities would protect its competitive standing, while the two employees were not parties and their names were irrelevant to the claims and defenses.
Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen ordered those specified identities sealed. She also ordered the plaintiffs to publicly file versions of the complaint and comparison document containing only those redactions by August 12, 2024; the unredacted versions were to remain sealed.
The detailed version
- Hubbard v. Google LLC · No. 5:19-cv-07016
- Susan Van Keulen
- Aug. 5, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs filed a sixth amended complaint and a redline showing changes from their prior operative complaint. They redacted information that Google LLC and YouTube, LLC, collectively called “Google,” had designated confidential under the protective order in the case. The plaintiffs asked the court to determine whether those redactions were proper.
Google supported keeping limited portions of the redactions. It specifically asked the court to seal the identities of Google customers, the identity of a Google employee, and the identity of an employee of a Google customer.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that the public has a right to access court files. To seal portions of a complaint, a party must provide “compelling reasons.” The court found that sealing the identities of Google’s customers met that standard because it would preserve Google’s competitive standing. The court also found compelling reasons to seal the names of the two employees because they were not parties to the case and their names were irrelevant to the parties’ claims and defenses.
Order
The court ordered the following information sealed in the sixth amended complaint and its redline: the identities of Google customers; the identity of a Google employee; and the identities of a Google customer and that customer’s employee, in the specified paragraphs. The plaintiffs were ordered to publicly file copies containing only those redactions by August 12, 2024. The unredacted copies were to remain under seal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.