Calhoun v. Google LLC
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-05146
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 13
In Calhoun v. Google LLC, Magistrate Judge Van Keulen granted motions to seal specified portions of discovery-related materials.
The order affected Google, the plaintiffs, and the public’s access to the identified court filings and discovery materials. It allowed specified portions to remain sealed to protect confidential Google information, a Google employee’s private medical information, and attorney-client communications.
What happened
Calhoun v. Google LLC involved several requests to keep parts of materials related to discovery disputes from public view. The court said these materials were connected to discovery motions rather than the case’s merits, so the lower “good cause” standard applied.
The court granted the motions as to the specifically identified redacted portions. The sealed information included Google’s confidential technical, business, system, and security information; a Google employee’s private medical information; and attorney-client communications submitted for the court’s review.
Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen ruled that the redactions were justified because the information was not generally known and public disclosure could harm Google’s competitive position, increase security risks, or reveal protected communications.
The detailed version
- Calhoun v. Google LLC · No. 4:20-cv-05146
- Yvonne Rogers
- Apr. 14, 2022
Background
The court considered administrative motions to file under seal materials associated with discovery disputes. The order addressed motions at Docket Nos. 509, 546, 547, 555, 557, 559, 566, 593, 598, and 611.
Legal standard
Court records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. The court explained that the standard for sealing depends on how closely the records relate to the merits of the case. The “compelling reasons” standard applies to records connected more than tangentially to the underlying claims. The lower “good cause” standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) applies to records that are not related, or are only tangentially related, to the merits. The court applied the good-cause standard because the materials were submitted in connection with discovery-related motions rather than motions concerning the merits of the case.
Rulings
The court granted Docket No. 509 as to specified redacted portions of a joint submission. The court found that the redactions protected confidential information about Google’s products and systems, including internal cookies, identifiers, practices, logs, employee medical information, internal metrics, and investigations into the financial impact of certain features.
The court granted Docket Nos. 546 and 547 as to the specified redacted portions. The information included Google’s nonpublic internal identifiers, practices, logs, internal metrics, feature-related financial investigations, and personal and private medical information concerning a Google employee.
The court granted Docket No. 555 as to the specified redacted portions of the plaintiffs’ motion to compel the deposition of Sundar Pichai and Exhibits 1 through 12. The court found that the redactions protected confidential and proprietary information about sensitive features, internal projects, system operations, proprietary functions, internal metrics, and related business practices. The court also granted Docket No. 557 as to the specified redacted portions of a February 28, 2022 hearing transcript, finding that the information included nonpublic business information about internal projects, identifiers, data fields, dashboards, logs, and investigations.
The court granted Docket No. 559 as to the specified redacted portions of a joint submission and Exhibits A and B concerning fact-discovery disputes, finding that the redactions were narrowly tailored to protect confidential technical information about data sources, logs, internal data structures, identifiers, and proprietary functions. The court granted Docket No. 566 as to the specified redacted portions of Google’s opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion to compel the deposition of Sundar Pichai, for similar reasons.
The court granted Docket No. 593 as to the specified redacted portions of two March 11, 2022 joint discovery-dispute charts. It found that the redactions narrowly protected confidential technical information about internal projects, data signals, logs, and proprietary functions. The court granted Docket No. 598 as to specified redacted portions of a joint submission concerning a clawback dispute because the material quoted or summarized attorney-client communications and had been submitted to facilitate the court’s private review of Google’s privilege claims.
Finally, the court granted Docket No. 611 as to specified redacted portions of Exhibit A to the Special Master’s report and recommendations concerning a discovery preservation plan. The court found that the redactions narrowly protected confidential technical information about Google’s internal projects, data signals, logs, and proprietary functions.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen granted each listed motion to seal as to the redacted portions identified in the order. The order did not decide the merits of the underlying case, and it stated that the court might reach different conclusions under a different sealing standard or in a different context.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.