Calhoun v. Google LLC
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-05146
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Calhoun v. Google LLC, Magistrate Judge Van Keulen granted motions to seal limited discovery material protecting Google’s confidential information and personal data.
Google LLC and the plaintiffs were affected because specified portions of discovery-related filings and hearing transcripts were permitted to remain sealed or redacted to protect confidential Google information and plaintiffs’ personal information.
What happened
Calhoun v. Google LLC involved several requests to keep portions of materials connected to discovery disputes from public view. The materials included a joint letter brief, a hearing transcript, an order, and an exhibit.
The court applied a lower “good cause” standard because the materials concerned discovery rather than the merits of the case. It granted the motions as to specified redacted portions, finding that the redactions narrowly protected Google’s confidential technical information, internal systems, projects, and operations, as well as plaintiffs’ personal information and web-browsing information.
Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen issued the order on November 23, 2021. The order addressed Docket Nos. 350, 379, 384, and 385 and did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Calhoun v. Google LLC · No. 4:20-cv-05146
- Yvonne Rogers
- Nov. 23, 2021
Background
The court considered four administrative motions to file materials under seal: Docket Nos. 350, 379, 384, and 385. The materials were associated with discovery disputes, including a joint letter brief concerning a protective order and a subpoena, hearing transcripts, a November 12, 2021 order, and an exhibit to that order.
Legal standard
Court records are generally presumed to be available to the public. The court explained that requests involving records more than tangentially related to the merits require “compelling reasons,” while records connected only tangentially to the merits may be sealed under the lower “good cause” standard in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Because these materials were submitted in connection with discovery-related motions rather than merits motions, the court applied the good-cause standard. The court also noted that a different standard could apply in another context.
Rulings
The court granted Docket No. 350 as to specified redacted portions of Exhibit E to the joint letter brief. The redactions protected confidential information about Google’s products, systems, and internal operations that Google maintains as confidential and that is not generally known to the public or Google’s competitors.
The court granted Docket No. 379 as to specified redacted portions of the September 30, 2021 hearing transcript. The redactions protected confidential technical information about Google’s internal systems and operations, including internal identifiers, cookies, and proprietary functions, as well as plaintiffs’ personally identifiable information.
The court granted Docket No. 384 as to specified redacted portions of the November 12, 2021 order and Exhibit 1 to that order. The redactions protected confidential and proprietary information about Google’s internal identifiers, systems, projects, data structures, operations, and particular internal data sources that Google was ordered to search for information relating to plaintiffs.
The court granted Docket No. 385 as to specified redacted portions of the November 4, 2021 hearing transcript. One group of redactions protected plaintiffs’ personally identifiable information and web-browsing information. The other group protected confidential technical information about Google’s internal systems, practices, projects, identifiers, cookies, logs, and proprietary functions.
Effect of the order
The order permitted the identified portions to remain redacted or sealed under the court’s filing procedures. It did not resolve the merits of the underlying dispute. The opinion is signed by Susan Van Keulen, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.