Google LLC v. LATAM Airlines Group S.A. Inc.
- Beth Freeman
- 5:25-cv-04984
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Google v. LATAM Airlines, Judge Freeman granted Google’s motion to seal an unpublished Brazilian court order and quoted portions of an expedited-hearing motion.
Google may file the specified Brazilian court order and quoted portions of its expedited-hearing motion under seal. The public will not have access to those sealed or redacted portions, and the defendants did not oppose the request.
What happened
Google LLC v. LATAM Airlines Group S.A. Inc. involved Google’s request to keep certain materials private while seeking an expedited hearing on its motion for a preliminary injunction. LATAM Airlines Group S.A. Inc. and TAM Linhas Aereas S.A. did not oppose the request.
The court granted Google’s requests to seal an unpublished order from Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice and about seven lines quoting that order. The court found good cause because publicly filing the material could expose Google to fines or penalties under that court’s rules, and it ordered the redactions listed in its chart.
Judge Beth Freeman issued the order on July 2, 2025. The order concerned only the sealing request, not the underlying motion for a preliminary injunction.
The detailed version
- Google LLC v. LATAM Airlines Group S.A. Inc. · No. 5:25-cv-04984
- Beth Freeman
- July 2, 2025
Background
Google filed an administrative motion to seal materials submitted with its administrative motion to expedite a hearing on its motion for a preliminary injunction. LATAM Airlines Group S.A. Inc. and TAM Linhas Aereas S.A. stated that they did not oppose the motion to seal.
The materials concerned an unpublished removal order issued by Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice and approximately seven lines quoting that order in Google’s motion to expedite the hearing.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. Because this sealing request concerned a motion about scheduling, rather than a motion more directly addressing the merits, the court applied the lower “good cause” standard. That standard required a specific showing of the harm that could result from disclosure. The court also required the proposed sealing to be narrowly tailored and to address whether a less restrictive alternative, such as redaction, would be sufficient.
Ruling
The court granted Google’s requests to seal. It found good cause to seal the unpublished order because the Superior Court of Justice had not made the order public and Google could face fines or penalties if it publicly filed the order or quotes from it. The court also found that the requested sealing was narrowly tailored and that no less restrictive alternative was sufficient. The order directed the redactions identified in the accompanying chart.
This order addressed the sealing request only. It did not decide Google’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.