John Doe I, et al. v. Google LLC
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:23-cv-02431
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
In John Doe I v. Google LLC, Judge Van Keulen granted Google’s motion to keep specified filings and passages under seal.
Google LLC, the plaintiffs, and members of the public seeking access to the specified court filings. The order keeps identified materials under seal while making redacted versions publicly available.
What happened
In John Doe I, et al. v. Google LLC, Google asked the Northern District of California to seal information in several filings and exhibits. The motion followed earlier court directions about a combined sealing request, and the plaintiffs did not oppose it.
The court granted Google’s motion. It allowed certain highlighted passages to remain sealed and allowed several exhibits to be sealed in their entirety. The court found that the information included sensitive, nonpublic, and proprietary details, and that disclosure could increase cybersecurity risks or cause competitive harm. It also approved sealing references to a retention period in discovery materials.
Judge Susan Van Keulen ordered the clerk to keep the specified filings under seal until further order. Redacted versions were made publicly available.
The detailed version
- John Doe I, et al. v. Google LLC · No. 3:23-cv-02431
- Vince Chhabria
- Mar. 4, 2026
Background
Google filed an omnibus administrative motion to seal materials in this case. The motion followed the court’s September 30, 2025 order approving the parties’ stipulation for a combined sealing motion and related directions. The parties had filed interim sealing notices, and Google supported its motion with a declaration required by the Northern District of California’s Civil Local Rule 79-5(c). The plaintiffs did not oppose the motion, and the opposition deadline had passed.
Ruling
The court granted Google’s omnibus motion. The order approved the following sealing requests:
- For Exhibit A to the joint letter brief concerning requests for production numbers 6 and 20, the court sealed highlighted portions on pages 5–7, 10, and 12–14. - For Exhibit B to that brief concerning requests for production numbers 2 and 3, the court sealed the highlighted portions. - For the transcript of the October 21, 2025 hearing, the court sealed highlighted portions on pages 9–11, 37, 40, and 54. - For the joint letter brief concerning identifier mappings and linkages, the court granted sealing for the specified pages and portions. It also approved sealing pages 5 and 10–11 to protect a disclosed retention period, citing the limited public-access rights generally applicable to discovery materials. - For Exhibits 1, 2, and 4 to the joint letter brief concerning data lineage and architecture, the court sealed the exhibits in their entirety. - For another joint letter brief concerning data lineage and architecture, the court sealed the highlighted portions identified in the order. - For materials concerning requests for production numbers 16 and 17, the court sealed the highlighted portions identified in the order, including portions of a related hearing transcript.
The court accepted Google’s explanation that the information included nonpublic, sensitive, and proprietary names, identifiers, internal systems, business verticals, data sources, and related descriptions. It found that public disclosure could increase Google’s cybersecurity risks and cause competitive harm. The court also relied on the plaintiffs’ non-opposition and, for the retention-period information, the more limited public right of access to discovery materials.
Effect of the Order
The clerk was ordered to maintain the specified docket entries under seal until further order of the court. Publicly accessible redacted copies were available at the docket entries identified in the order. The order addressed sealing only; the opinion text does not state that it decided the underlying claims.
Judge Susan Van Keulen signed the order on March 4, 2026.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.