Calhoun v. Google LLC
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-05146
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Calhoun v. Google LLC, Magistrate Judge Van Keulen granted three sealing motions for specified redactions protecting Google’s confidential business and technical information.
Google’s confidential business and technical information, the parties’ filed discovery materials, and public access to the specified court records.
What happened
In Calhoun v. Google LLC, the court considered three administrative motions seeking to keep parts of documents filed with discovery-related motions from public view.
The court applied the lower “good cause” standard because the documents concerned discovery rather than the case’s underlying merits. It granted each motion as to specified redacted portions, finding that the redactions narrowly protected confidential information about Google’s systems, operations, strategies, designs, business practices, projects, data logs, identifiers, and cookies.
The order was signed by Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen. It did not seal the documents in their entirety; it approved only the listed redactions.
The detailed version
- Calhoun v. Google LLC · No. 4:20-cv-05146
- Yvonne Rogers
- Jan. 6, 2022
Background
The court considered administrative motions to file under seal materials connected to discovery disputes. The motions were docketed at Dkt. Nos. 399, 401, and 409.
Legal standard
Court records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. When records relate more than tangentially to the merits of a case, a party seeking secrecy must show “compelling reasons.” When records are not related, or are only tangentially related, to the merits, the lower “good cause” standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) applies. The party seeking sealing must also follow Civil Local Rule 79-5.
The court held that the good-cause standard applied because the information was submitted with discovery-related motions rather than motions concerning the merits of the case. The court noted that it could reach different conclusions under a different standard or in a different context.
Rulings
The court ruled as follows:
- Dkt. 399: The motion was granted as to specified redacted portions of a joint submission responding to Dkt. 397 concerning the “Second Topic,” at pages and lines 2:21-22, 2:24-25, 3:1-4, 3:10-12, and 4:11-12. It was also granted as to specified redacted portions of Exhibit A at pages 1-2, 5-6, and 8. The court found the redactions narrowly tailored to protect confidential technical information about Google’s internal systems and operations, including projects, data logs, and proprietary functions that Google maintains as confidential and that are not generally known to the public or its competitors.
- Dkt. 401: The motion was granted as to specified redacted portions of a joint submission responding to Dkt. 397 concerning electronic-discovery custodians, at 2:7, 2:8-9, 2:10-12, 2:15-17, 2:18-19, 2:22-23, and 3:1-2. The court found the redactions narrowly tailored to protect confidential information about Google’s internal strategies, system designs, and business practices for operating and maintaining its services and products. The court also found that disclosure could affect Google’s competitive standing and increase risks to its identifier systems.
- Dkt. 409: The motion was granted as to portions highlighted in yellow in the December 13, 2021 joint submission at 3:11-12, 3:19-21, 5:26-28, and 6:28. It was also granted as to portions highlighted in yellow in Appendix A at 7:9, 7:10, and 7:12. The court found these redactions narrowly tailored to protect confidential information that Google maintains as confidential in the ordinary course of business and that is not generally known to the public or Google’s competitors.
The order was signed by Susan Van Keulen, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.