Rodriguez v. Google LLC

Background

The court considered several pending motions to seal materials in the case. The materials included Plaintiffs’ initial disclosures, information about people who sought exclusion from certified classes, briefing and exhibits related to expert-witness motions and whether Google’s chief executive officer would testify at trial, exhibits connected to motions in limine, and materials Plaintiffs had designated as confidential.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial records are strongly presumed to be available to the public. A sealing request must be narrowly tailored. For materials unrelated to the merits, a party generally must show good cause. For materials related to the merits, the party must show a compelling reason supported by specific facts, after which the court balances the public’s interest against the private interest in sealing.

Rulings

- Docket No. 454: The court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to seal personal information in their required initial disclosures. The court identified privacy interests in Plaintiffs’ addresses and telephone numbers and found that those details were irrelevant to the material questions in the case. - Docket No. 469: The court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to seal personal information about people who sought exclusion from the certified classes. - Docket No. 497: The court preliminarily denied without prejudice the request to seal portions of briefing and exhibits connected to the parties’ expert-witness motions and motions concerning whether Google’s chief executive officer would testify at trial. The materials remained under seal for the time being. Documents admitted into evidence must be filed publicly within two weeks after any final jury verdict; documents not admitted into evidence may remain sealed. - Docket No. 532: Regarding exhibits connected to Google’s motions in limine, the court stated that personally identifying email addresses were an exception, while the other materials could remain sealed pending possible admission into evidence. Any material that became evidence had to be filed publicly within two weeks after any final jury verdict, while material that did not become evidence could remain sealed. - Docket No. 546: Because Plaintiffs did not respond and the court found no compelling reason to seal the identified material, the court ordered it filed on the public docket. - Docket No. 562: The court allowed individual email addresses and code names to remain sealed or redacted. Other material Google sought to seal would not remain sealed if it became trial evidence; exhibits admitted into evidence had to be filed publicly within two weeks after any final jury verdict.

The order was dated August 18, 2025, and signed by Chief United States District Judge Richard Seeborg.