Brown v. Google LLC
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-03664
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 10
In Brown v. Google LLC, Judge Van Keulen granted sealing of specified discovery-related redactions and instructed parties on future sealing motions.
The parties to Brown v. Google LLC, particularly Google regarding the confidential information ordered sealed, and anyone seeking public access to the specified discovery-related filings.
What happened
Brown v. Google LLC concerned several requests to keep information connected to discovery disputes from public view. The court explained that court records generally carry a strong presumption of public access, but the lower “good cause” standard applied because these materials concerned discovery rather than the case’s merits.
The court granted the motions as to the specified redacted portions, including information about Google’s internal systems, projects, identifiers, cookies, data, logs, business practices, employees, and one employee’s medical information. The court also instructed parties seeking to seal material in future discovery-related filings to propose language explaining why sealing should be allowed instead of merely referring to supporting documents.
The order was signed on March 17, 2022, by Judge Susan Van Keulen.
The detailed version
- Brown v. Google LLC · No. 4:20-cv-03664
- Yvonne Rogers
- Mar. 17, 2022
Background
The court considered administrative motions seeking permission to file under seal materials associated with discovery disputes. The materials included joint discovery letters, submissions concerning discovery disputes, exhibits, responses to requests for admission and interrogatories, hearing transcripts, and information about a Google employee.
The court noted that judicial records generally have a strong presumption of public access. It explained that the standard for sealing depends on how closely the records relate to the merits of the case. Because the information here was submitted in connection with discovery-related motions rather than motions addressing the case’s merits, the court applied the “good cause” standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The court also noted that its conclusions could differ under another standard or in another context.
Rulings on the Sealing Motions
The court granted Dkt. Nos. 410, 423, 436, 455, 463, 469, 470, and 475 as to the specified redacted portions. It granted Dkt. No. 452 as to the exhibit identified in that motion. The sealed material included confidential and proprietary information about Google’s internal technological systems, operations, projects, identifiers, cookies, data signals, data fields, logs, internal investigations, metrics, and business practices. The court found that public disclosure could affect Google’s competitive standing or increase security risks.
For Dkt. No. 452, the court also found good cause to seal information about Google employees working on certain products, including their names, organizational divisions, managers, and titles. For Dkt. No. 469, the court found good cause to seal personal and private medical information about a Google employee. The order granted sealing only as to the portions and pages identified in the ruling.
Instruction for Future Motions
For future sealing motions involving discovery-related filings, the court instructed the party seeking to seal material to include proposed language explaining the reasons for the requested ruling. The court asked parties not to simply cross-reference documents filed in support of the sealing request.
Disposition
The specified administrative motions for leave to file under seal were granted as stated in the order, and the court issued instructions concerning future sealing motions. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.