Calhoun v. Google LLC
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-05146
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Calhoun v. Google LLC, Magistrate Judge Van Keulen granted Google's request to seal specified portions of a discovery-hearing transcript.
Google, whose confidential technical information was protected, and the public, whose access to the specified transcript portions was restricted.
What happened
Calhoun v. Google LLC concerned Google's request to seal portions of the transcript from a June 2, 2021 discovery hearing. The parties submitted the request jointly.
The court applied the lower “good cause” standard because the transcript was connected to a discovery-related motion rather than the case's merits. It found good cause to protect confidential technical information about Google's internal systems, operations, identifiers, cookies, and proprietary functions.
Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen granted the request as to the specified redacted portions of the transcript. The order did not decide the underlying claims in the case.
The detailed version
- Calhoun v. Google LLC · No. 4:20-cv-05146
- Yvonne Rogers
- June 21, 2021
Background
The parties filed a joint submission concerning Google's request to seal portions of the transcript of the June 2, 2021 discovery hearing. The order addressed only whether specified portions of that transcript should remain unavailable to the public.
Legal standard
Court records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. The required showing depends on how the records are being used. The court determined that the “good cause” standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) applied because the information was submitted in connection with a discovery-related motion, not a motion concerning the merits of the case. The court noted that a sealing request could receive a different result under a different standard or in a different context.
Ruling
The court found good cause and granted the request as to the redacted portions identified in the order, including portions at transcript pages and lines listed in the ruling. The court found the redactions narrowly tailored to protect confidential technical information about Google's internal systems and operations, including details about the identifiers and cookies Google uses internally and their proprietary functions.
Effect
The order restricted public access to the specified portions of the discovery-hearing transcript. It did not rule on the underlying claims or defenses.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.