Calhoun v. Google LLC
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-05146
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Calhoun v. Google LLC, Judge Van Keulen granted most sealing requests but denied one without prejudice and ordered Google to correct or explain Exhibit B.
Google, the other parties to the discovery proceedings, and members of the public seeking access to the court records.
What happened
In Calhoun v. Google LLC, Google asked to seal portions of two joint discovery letter briefs and related exhibits. The court applied the lower “good cause” standard because the materials were submitted with a discovery-related motion.
The court granted the requests for specified redacted portions of both letter briefs and Exhibits A and C. It denied Google’s request for Exhibit B without prejudice because Google submitted two different unredacted versions and did not explain them. The court gave Google seven days to file corrected versions or explain the existing versions.
Judge Van Keulen issued the order on May 25, 2021. The order protects limited information about Google’s employees, internal systems, identifiers, data logs, operations, and proprietary services while preserving the general public-access rule for court records.
The detailed version
- Calhoun v. Google LLC · No. 4:20-cv-05146
- Yvonne Rogers
- May 25, 2021
Background
Google filed administrative motions asking the court to seal portions of the parties’ May 11 and May 12, 2021 joint discovery letter briefs and related exhibits. The court explained that court records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. Because the materials were submitted in connection with a discovery-related motion, the court applied the “good cause” standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), rather than the more demanding standard used for records more closely tied to the merits of a case.
Rulings
The court granted the motion to seal portions of the joint letter brief concerning additional Google electronic-discovery custodians, specifically the redacted portions at pages 3:15, 6:8, and 6:10. The court also granted the motion as to the redacted portions of Exhibit C at pages 1 and 2. These redactions were narrowly tailored to protect confidential and proprietary information about Google employees, their roles and responsibilities, and internal proprietary Google services.
The court granted the motion to seal specified redacted portions of the joint letter brief concerning an additional deposition of Google’s designated corporate representative under Rule 30(b)(6). The court found the redactions narrowly tailored to protect highly confidential and proprietary information about Google’s internal systems and operations, including identifiers and cookies used internally, data logs, the effort required to separate requested data, and employee roles related to internal proprietary services.
The court also granted the motion as to specified redacted portions of Exhibit A, finding that the redactions were narrowly tailored to protect highly confidential and proprietary information about Google’s internal systems and operations, including internally used identifiers and cookies and their proprietary functions.
The court denied without prejudice the request concerning Exhibit B. Google had submitted two unredacted versions of that exhibit with different proposed redactions, and its supporting declaration did not describe or explain the two versions. Within seven days of the order, Google was required to file either corrected proposed redacted and unredacted versions of Exhibit B with a proposed order, or an explanation of the existing unredacted versions.
Effect of the Order
The order resolved Google’s sealing motions for the specified materials but required further action regarding Exhibit B. It did not decide the underlying discovery dispute. Judge Susan Van Keulen signed the order as a United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.