Calhoun v. Google LLC
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-05146
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Calhoun v. Google LLC, Judge Van Keulen granted some sealing requests and denied another without prejudice, protecting specified confidential Google information.
The order affected the plaintiffs’ and Google’s ability to keep specified discovery-related materials from public view. It also affected public access to those court records.
What happened
In Calhoun v. Google LLC, the court considered several requests to keep materials from discovery-related disputes out of the public record. The materials included a hearing transcript, deposition-related exhibits, and other filings.
The court granted the requests to seal specified portions of the materials in Docket Nos. 653, 698, and 701. It denied the request in Docket No. 677 without prejudice because Google had not submitted the declaration required to support sealing under the court’s local rule. The court directed Google to submit that declaration by June 28, 2022.
The court applied the lower standard for sealing discovery-related materials and found good cause to protect confidential information about Google’s internal systems, projects, operations, and business practices. The order was signed by Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen.
The detailed version
- Calhoun v. Google LLC · No. 4:20-cv-05146
- Yvonne Rogers
- June 21, 2022
Background
The court considered administrative motions to file under seal materials connected to discovery disputes. Sealing means restricting public access to court filings or portions of them.
The court explained that court records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. The level of justification needed to overcome that presumption depends on how closely the materials relate to the merits of the case. Because these materials were submitted in connection with discovery-related motions rather than motions addressing the merits, the court applied the “good cause” standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).
Rulings
- Docket No. 653: The court granted the motion to seal specified portions of a March 17, 2022 hearing transcript. The court found that the portions contained Google’s confidential and proprietary information, including details about internal systems, projects, identifiers, logs, internal metrics, strategies, system designs, and business practices. The court stated that public disclosure could affect Google’s competitive position and increase cybersecurity risks.
- Docket No. 677: The court denied the plaintiffs’ supplemental request to seal specified portions of their response to Docket No. 674 without prejudice. The stated reason was that Google had designated the information as confidential under the protective order but had not filed the declaration required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(f). The court ordered Google to submit that declaration no later than June 28, 2022 and stated that failure to do so might result in denial of the sealing motion.
- Docket No. 698, also referenced with Docket No. 721: The court granted the motion to seal highlighted portions of Exhibits A and B. It found the requested redactions narrowly tailored to protect confidential technical information about sensitive features of Google’s internal systems, operations, and internal projects.
- Docket No. 701, also referenced with Docket No. 726: The court granted the motion to seal specified portions of Exhibit B to a notice of errata. The court found that the material contained confidential and proprietary information about sensitive features of Google’s internal systems and operations, fell within the protective order’s scope, and could affect Google’s competitive position or increase cybersecurity risks if publicly disclosed.
Effect of the Order
The order addressed only public access to specified materials associated with discovery disputes. It did not decide the merits of the underlying case. The sealing request in Docket No. 677 was denied without prejudice, while the requests in Docket Nos. 653, 698, and 701 were granted as to the specified portions.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.