Brown v. Google LLC
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-03664
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 8
In Brown v. Google LLC, Judge Van Keulen granted motions to seal discovery materials, protecting confidential technical information and privacy interests.
The Brown plaintiffs, Google LLC, and members of the public seeking access to the specified court filings were affected. The order restricted public access to designated portions of discovery-related materials and to certain exhibits in their entirety.
What happened
In Brown v. Google LLC, the parties asked the court to keep certain materials filed with discovery-related motions from public view. The materials concerned Google’s internal systems, cookies, identifiers, logs, operations, and related information, as well as materials implicating individual privacy interests.
The court granted all the sealing motions. It allowed specified portions of several documents to be redacted and allowed certain exhibits and documents to be sealed in their entirety. The court applied the lower “good cause” standard because the materials were submitted with discovery disputes rather than motions addressing the merits of the case.
Judge Van Keulen explained that the sealed information was confidential, was not generally known to the public or Google’s competitors, and was protected only to the extent necessary. The order was dated August 11, 2021.
The detailed version
- Brown v. Google LLC · No. 4:20-cv-03664
- Yvonne Rogers
- Aug. 11, 2021
Background
The court considered administrative motions to file materials under seal in connection with discovery disputes. The motions were docketed at Nos. 198, 204, 210, 217, 228, and 229.
Court records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. The court explained that the standard for overcoming that presumption depends on how closely the records relate to the merits of the case. Because the materials here were submitted with discovery-related motions rather than motions concerning the merits, the court applied the “good cause” standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).
Rulings
The court granted the motion at ECF 198 as to specified redacted portions of the plaintiffs’ motion to compel concerning Dispute P3, the supporting declaration of John A. Yanchunis, Exhibits 3, 4, and 7, and the proposed order. It granted the request to seal Exhibits 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8 in their entirety. The court found that these materials contained confidential technical information about Google’s operations, consumer data, internal identifiers and cookies, proprietary functions, data-storage infrastructure, and logs.
The court granted the motion at ECF 204 for the joint submission concerning nominations for a special master and proposed orders, including Exhibits A-1 through A-5, based on individual privacy interests.
The court granted the motion at ECF 210 as to specified redacted portions of the opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion to compel concerning Dispute P3 and of Google’s May 24, 2021 responses and objections to the plaintiffs’ notice of a deposition under Rule 30(b)(6). The court found that the designated portions contained confidential technical information about Google’s operations, consumer data, internal identifiers and cookies, and their proprietary functions.
The court granted the motion at ECF 217 as to specified redacted portions of a joint letter brief concerning Dispute P16. The information involved Google’s internal systems and operations, internal identifiers, data logs, and practices concerning the X-Client-Data Header and its proprietary functions.
The court granted the motion at ECF 228 as to specified redacted portions of a joint submission. The information involved Google’s internal systems and operations, cookies, internal identifiers, data logs, internal communications, and practices concerning Incognito and the X-Client-Data Header.
The court granted the motion at ECF 229 as to specified redacted portions of the plaintiffs’ proposed orders concerning a custodian and search terms and concerning Sundar Pichai’s production. The court found that the designated information concerned confidential features of Google’s internal systems and operations, including cookies, internal identifiers, projects, and data logs.
Effect of the Order
The order permitted the listed redactions and complete sealing of the listed exhibits and documents. The court stated that the sealing was narrowly tailored where only portions were sealed and cautioned that different standards or a different context could produce different conclusions. The order did not decide the merits of the underlying case or discovery disputes.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.