Brown v. Google LLC
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-03664
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Brown v. Google LLC, Judge Van Keulen granted Google's motion to seal specified redacted portions of a discovery submission.
Google LLC, the parties to the discovery submission, and the public’s access to the specified court records.
What happened
In Brown v. Google LLC, Google asked the court to seal parts of the parties’ joint submission about discovery.
The court applied the lower “good cause” standard because the information was submitted with a discovery-related motion, not a motion about the case’s merits. It granted the request for the redacted portions on pages 6 and 10.
Judge Susan Van Keulen said the redactions were narrowly tailored to protect confidential technical information about Google’s operations, including internal identifiers, cookies, and their proprietary functions.
The detailed version
- Brown v. Google LLC · No. 4:20-cv-03664
- Yvonne Rogers
- June 8, 2021
Background
Google filed an administrative motion asking the court to seal portions of the parties’ May 26, 2021 Joint Discovery Submission. The requested sealing concerned information submitted in connection with a discovery-related motion.
Legal Standard
Court records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. The court explained that the standard for sealing depends on how the records relate to the case. Records connected more than tangentially to the merits require “compelling reasons,” while records connected only tangentially to the merits, including records submitted with discovery motions, are governed by the lower “good cause” standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). A sealing request must also follow the court’s local procedures.
Ruling
The court applied the good-cause standard because the material was submitted with a discovery-related motion rather than a motion concerning the merits. After considering the sealing motion, supporting declarations, and the filings, the court granted the request as to the redacted portions at pages 6 and 10 of the Joint Submission. It found the redactions narrowly tailored to protect confidential technical information about Google’s operations, including types of Google’s internal identifiers and cookies and their proprietary functions. The court noted that it could reach a different result under a different standard or in a different context.
Disposition
Google’s administrative motion to file the specified portions under seal was granted as to the redacted portions at pages 6 and 10.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.