Calhoun v. Google LLC
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-05146
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Calhoun v. Google LLC, Magistrate Judge Van Keulen granted in part and denied without prejudice in part motions to seal discovery-related materials.
The ruling affects the plaintiffs, Google LLC, and public access to the specified court filings and redacted information.
What happened
Calhoun v. Google LLC concerns requests to keep certain materials filed with the court from public view. The materials were submitted with a joint letter and later briefing about Google’s request for a protective order.
The court applied the lower “good cause” standard because the materials concerned discovery rather than the case’s underlying claims. It found that some redacted portions contained confidential technical information about Google’s products, including data collected in log files, retention periods, and the nature of log-file data.
The court granted in part the requests to seal two sets of redacted portions, but denied without prejudice the requests covering the remaining listed documents because the proposed orders did not identify the relevant page and line numbers. Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen allowed corrected proposed orders within seven days, and the affected materials were to remain sealed in the meantime.
The detailed version
- Calhoun v. Google LLC · No. 4:20-cv-05146
- Yvonne Rogers
- Mar. 5, 2021
Background
The parties filed administrative motions asking the court to keep certain materials under seal. The materials were submitted in connection with a joint letter brief and later briefing on Google’s motion for a protective order. A protective order is a court order governing the handling or disclosure of information in litigation.
The court explained that court records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. For records connected to discovery-related motions rather than the merits of the case, the court applied the lower “good cause” standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The court also required compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5, including a proposed order identifying each document or portion sought to be sealed by page and line number.
Rulings
The court granted the requests to seal specified redacted portions of two joint letter briefs concerning Google’s motion for a protective order. The court found those redactions narrowly tailored to protect confidential technical information about Google’s products, including the volume of data collected in certain log files, applicable retention periods, and the nature of data contained in certain log files.
The court denied without prejudice the requests concerning the following materials because the proposed orders did not adequately identify the page and line numbers of the information sought to be sealed:
- Google’s motion for a protective order; - the Declaration of Andre Golueke; - Plaintiffs’ opposition to Google’s motion for a protective order; - the Declaration of Lesley Weaver supporting Plaintiffs’ opposition; - Exhibit A to the Declaration of Lesley Weaver; - the Declaration of Dr. Matthew Green supporting Plaintiffs’ opposition; and - Google’s reply supporting its motion for a protective order.
The court stated that Google could submit corrected proposed orders containing the missing information within seven days of the order. The documents or portions for which sealing was denied without prejudice were to remain under seal until the court ruled on a corrected submission or until the filing deadline expired without one. The order was signed by Susan Van Keulen, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.