Brown v. Google LLC
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-03664
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Brown v. Google LLC, Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen granted motions to seal limited discovery materials containing Google’s confidential information.
Google LLC and the public’s access to the specified court filings; the order allowed limited portions of those filings to remain sealed.
What happened
Brown v. Google LLC concerned several administrative requests to keep portions of documents filed during discovery disputes from public view.
The court applied the lower “good cause” standard because the documents related to discovery rather than the case’s merits. It found that the requested redactions covered confidential Google information, including technical details, internal projects, system operations, business practices, and internal metrics.
Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen granted each motion as to the specified portions of the documents, citing the need to protect Google’s confidential and proprietary information and, in some instances, sensitive technical information.
The detailed version
- Brown v. Google LLC · No. 4:20-cv-03664
- Yvonne Rogers
- Apr. 14, 2022
Background
The court considered administrative motions to file portions of discovery-related materials under seal: Dkt. Nos. 484, 509, 516, 518, and 534, with Dkt. 507 also referenced in connection with Dkt. 484. The materials included submissions concerning discovery disputes, requests for production, joint discovery-dispute letters and charts, and a Special Master’s report and recommendations concerning a preservation plan.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. For records connected to motions more than tangentially related to the merits of a case, a party must show compelling reasons to seal them. For records connected only tangentially to the merits, including records filed with discovery-related motions, the lower “good cause” standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) applies. The court held that the good-cause standard governed these requests because the materials were submitted in connection with discovery disputes rather than merits motions. It also noted that a sealing request must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5.
Rulings
The court granted the requests as to the specified portions of each submission:
- Dkt. 484, also referenced with Dkt. 507: The court granted sealing of redacted portions on pages 2–15 and 29–31 of a joint submission responding to Dkt. 447 concerning discovery disputes, and pages 2–3 of Exhibit A concerning priority requests for production. The court found that the material included Google’s confidential and proprietary information, such as project names, internal identifiers, practices concerning Incognito and its proprietary functions, internal metrics, and an investigation into the financial impact of certain features. - Dkt. 509: The court granted sealing of pages 1, 7, and 11–21 of Exhibit A to an order. It found the redactions narrowly tailored to protect confidential technical information about Google’s internal systems and operations, including internal projects, data signals and logs, proprietary functions, internal metrics, and an investigation into financial impact. - Dkt. 516: The court granted sealing of the portions highlighted in yellow on pages 1–3 of a joint letter brief. The reasons concerned Google’s confidential and proprietary information, including project names, internal identifiers, Incognito-related practices and functions, internal metrics, and an investigation into financial impact. - Dkt. 518: The court granted sealing of specified portions of two March 11, 2022 joint discovery-dispute charts. For the first chart, the sealed portions were PDF pages 4–17 and 31–33. For the second, they were PDF pages 4–8, 10–20, 38–41, and 48–49. The court found the redactions narrowly tailored to protect confidential technical information about Google’s systems, operations, projects, identifiers, Incognito-related practices and functions, internal metrics, and financial-impact investigations. - Dkt. 534: The court granted sealing of pages 2–3 of Exhibit A to the Special Master’s report and recommendations on referred discovery issues concerning the preservation plan. The court found that the portions contained confidential technical information about Google’s internal projects, data signals and logs, and proprietary functions.
The court stated that it could reach different conclusions about sealing the documents under different standards or in a different context. The order was signed by Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.