Brown v. Google LLC
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-03664
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
Brown v. Google LLC: Judge Van Keulen granted some sealing requests and denied another without prejudice, requiring a supporting declaration.
The ruling affected the parties’ ability to keep specified discovery-related materials confidential and preserved public access to materials covered by the denied request unless the required declaration was submitted.
What happened
In Brown v. Google LLC, the court considered several requests to keep materials related to discovery disputes from public view. The materials included reports, objections, responses, proposed orders, exhibits, and demonstratives.
The court applied a lower “good cause” standard because the materials concerned discovery rather than the merits of the case. It granted the requests in Docket Nos. 308, 309, and 310 for specified redacted portions and, for several exhibits, the entire documents. It denied the request in Docket No. 321 without prejudice because the required supporting declaration had not been filed.
Judge Van Keulen ordered Google to submit the required declaration by November 19, 2021. The opinion excerpt does not state what would happen if the declaration was not submitted by that deadline.
The detailed version
- Brown v. Google LLC · No. 4:20-cv-03664
- Yvonne Rogers
- Nov. 12, 2021
Background
The court considered administrative motions to file under seal materials connected to discovery disputes. Court records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. Under the court’s stated legal framework, the standard for sealing depends on how closely the records relate to the merits of the case. The court applied the “good cause” standard because these materials were submitted in connection with discovery-related motions rather than motions addressing the merits.
Rulings
- Docket No. 308: The court granted the request as to specified redacted portions of the October 20, 2021 Special Master’s Report and Exhibit A. The court found the redactions narrowly tailored to protect confidential and proprietary information about sensitive features of Google’s internal systems and operations. - Docket No. 309: The court granted the request as to specified redacted portions of Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Special Master’s Report and Orders on Referred Discovery Disputes and the proposed order. It also granted the request as to the entire documents identified as Exhibits A, B, C, D, and E. The court cited confidential and proprietary information involving project names, cookies, internal identifiers, financial information, internal communications and practices concerning Incognito, and proprietary functions. - Docket No. 310: The court granted the request as to specified redacted portions of Google’s Responses and Objections to the Special Master’s Report and Orders on Referred Discovery Issues. It also granted the request as to the entire documents identified as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4. The court cited confidential and proprietary information about Google’s internal identifiers, projects, logs, data usage, data flow, policies, and data structures. - Docket No. 321: The court denied without prejudice the request to seal Plaintiffs’ Demonstratives. The court stated that Plaintiffs relied on Google’s designation of the information under a protective order, but Google had not filed the declaration required to show that the material could be sealed under Civil Local Rule 79-5.
Required Filing and Scope
The court ordered Google to submit the required declaration no later than November 19, 2021. The opinion states that failure to submit the declaration by the extended deadline would have a consequence, but the provided excerpt ends before stating what that consequence would be. The court also cautioned that it could reach different conclusions about sealing under a different standard or in a different context.
Disposition
The court granted in part and denied in part the administrative motions to file under seal. Judge Susan Van Keulen signed the order on November 12, 2021.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.