Brown v. Google LLC

Background

The court considered administrative motions to file materials under seal in connection with discovery disputes. The requests concerned Dkt. Nos. 543, 545, 558, 560, 573, 586, and 592, along with related filings identified in the order.

The court explained that judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. It held that the “good cause” standard applied because the materials were submitted with discovery-related motions rather than motions concerning the merits of the case. The court also stated that it could reach different conclusions under a different standard or in a different context.

Rulings

- Dkt. 543: The motion to seal was GRANTED as to specified portions of Google LLC’s objections to the Special Master’s report and recommendation on referred discovery issues concerning the preservation plan. The court found that the material contained confidential and proprietary information about Google’s internal systems, projects, data signals, logs, strategies, system designs, and business practices. The court stated that disclosure could affect Google’s competitive standing and increase cybersecurity risks. - Dkt. 545: The motion to seal was GRANTED as to specified portions of plaintiffs’ objections to the report and orders on referred discovery disputes. The motion was also GRANTED as to specified portions of Exhibit 1 to a declaration supporting those objections, the declaration of Christopher Thompson, and Exhibits A and B to that declaration. The stated reasons were that the materials contained confidential Google information that was not generally known to the public or Google’s competitors, and that disclosure could create competitive and cybersecurity risks. - Dkt. 558: The motion to seal was GRANTED as to specified portions of Google’s responses to plaintiffs’ objections to the Special Master’s report and recommendation on referred discovery issues concerning the preservation plan. The motion was also GRANTED as to specified portions of Trebicka Exhibit 1 and the declaration of Richard Harting. The court relied on the confidential nature of the Google information and the potential competitive and cybersecurity risks from disclosure. - Dkt. 560: The motion to seal was GRANTED as to specified portions of plaintiffs’ response to Google’s objections to the Special Master’s report and the declaration of Thompson. The court again found that the materials contained confidential Google information about internal systems, projects, identifiers, data signals, logs, and proprietary functions. - Dkt. 573: The motion to seal was GRANTED as to specified portions of plaintiffs’ response to a submission concerning privilege re-review. The court found that the portions contained confidential Google information, including logs and proprietary functions. - Dkt. 586: The motion to seal was GRANTED as to specified redacted portions of a March 17, 2022 hearing transcript. The court found that some portions contained confidential Google information protected by the action’s protective order and that another portion contained sensitive medical information. - Dkt. 592: The motion to seal was GRANTED as to specified portions of the order adopting in part and modifying in part the Special Master’s report and recommendation on referred discovery issues concerning the preservation plan, and GRANTED as to specified portions of Exhibit A to that order. The court described the sealing as narrowly tailored to protect confidential technical information about Google’s internal systems and operations.

Effect of the Order

The order restricted public access to the specified portions identified in the ruling tables. It did not resolve the underlying claims or the merits of the discovery disputes. The document is signed by Susan Van Keulen, United States Magistrate Judge.