Morilha v. Alphabet Inc.
- Jon Tigar
- 4:24-cv-02793
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Morilha v. Alphabet, Judge Tigar partly granted and partly denied Morilha’s sealing request, keeping a medical record sealed and requiring remaining materials to be filed publicly for consideration.
Daniel Vitor Morilha’s sealing request and the public’s access to the affidavit and exhibits; the identified medical-record exhibit remained sealed.
What happened
In Morilha v. Alphabet Inc., Daniel Vitor Morilha asked the court to seal an affidavit and exhibits supporting his civil complaint, partly because they might contain Alphabet’s trade secrets.
The court found that the affidavit and exhibits did not contain trade-secret information. It found that a medical record should remain sealed because protecting medical privacy justified sealing it.
Judge Jon S. Tigar granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The medical-record exhibit remained sealed, while the remaining affidavit and exhibits had to be filed publicly within seven days for the court to consider their redacted portions.
The detailed version
- Morilha v. Alphabet Inc. · No. 4:24-cv-02793
- Jon Tigar
- Aug. 8, 2024
Background
Daniel Vitor Morilha filed an administrative motion asking to seal an affidavit and exhibits supporting his civil complaint. He asked the court to consider whether portions that might contain Alphabet Inc.’s legitimate trade secrets should be redacted and kept from public view.
Legal standard
The court explained that a party seeking to seal a court filing must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5 and overcome the strong presumption that judicial records should be accessible to the public. The request must identify the applicable legal standard and the reasons for sealing, and it must be narrowly limited to material that can properly be sealed. For judicial records attached to motions that could resolve claims, the party must show compelling reasons that outweigh the public’s interest in access.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that Morilha’s motion did not meet these requirements. It found that none of the statements in the affidavit or the exhibits contained trade-secret information. The court did, however, find that one exhibit was a medical record and that protecting medical privacy was a compelling reason to seal it.
Ruling
Judge Jon S. Tigar granted Morilha’s motion in part and denied it in part. The court granted the motion as to the exhibit identified at ECF No. 35-3 at 16 and ECF No. 35-4 at 11, and that document remained under seal. The court denied the motion as to the remaining exhibits and affidavit. It stated that it would not consider the redacted portions of those materials unless Morilha filed them on the public record within seven days of the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.