Kewazinga Corp. v. Google LLC

Background

The parties moved to seal documents submitted in connection with their motions in limine, their motions concerning the admissibility of expert testimony, and Plaintiff’s amended opening damages report by expert Michele Riley. Plaintiff also filed an amended motion to seal an earlier letter concerning its opposition to Google’s motion to exclude portions of Riley’s opinions. Google supported Plaintiff’s amended motion.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the three-part test for sealing court filings. First, it decided whether the materials were judicial documents subject to a presumption of public access. It concluded that all of the materials at issue were judicial documents because they were relevant to the court’s work and called for the exercise of the court’s judicial powers. The court explained that materials submitted with motions in limine and expert-evidence motions receive a lesser, although still substantial, presumption of public access because those motions are not dispositive and do not determine the parties’ substantive rights.

The court then considered whether competing interests outweighed public access. It noted that protecting confidential business information and strategies can qualify as a higher value supporting sealing, but that general or conclusory claims of competitive harm are not enough. Here, the parties described the proposed redactions as covering confidential business and legal information. The court’s review confirmed that description. It found that the proposed redactions were limited to specific information and narrowly tailored to protect against competitive harm, which outweighed the presumption of public access.

Disposition

The court granted the sealing motions at Docket Nos. 468, 493, 497, 500, 503, 506, 509, and 512. It denied the sealing motion at Docket No. 480 as moot. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions at Docket Nos. 468, 480, 493, 497, 500, 503, 506, 509, and 512.