Calhoun v. Google LLC
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-05146
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 28
In Calhoun v. Google, Judge Van Keulen mostly granted requests to seal discovery materials, denied one request, and ordered an unredacted filing.
The plaintiffs and Google LLC, as well as members of the public seeking access to the specified court records, were affected. Most identified portions remained sealed, while the plaintiffs were ordered to file an unredacted version of Docket 717.
What happened
Calhoun v. Google LLC involved multiple administrative requests by the parties to keep portions of documents connected to discovery disputes from public view. The materials included filings, declarations, exhibits, and a hearing transcript.
The court applied a lower secrecy standard because the materials were connected to discovery-related motions rather than the case’s merits. Most requests were granted in specified portions because they contained Google’s confidential technical and business information or the plaintiffs’ private browsing-history information. One request, concerning redactions in the plaintiffs’ response to Google’s motion for clarification, was denied because Google said no confidential information needed protection.
Judge Susan Van Keulen ordered the plaintiffs to file an unredacted version of Docket 717 within seven days, consistent with the denial of the sealing request at Docket 716. The order addressed access to documents and did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Calhoun v. Google LLC · No. 4:20-cv-05146
- Yvonne Rogers
- July 15, 2022
Background
The court considered numerous administrative motions to file under seal materials associated with discovery disputes. The requests covered objections and responses concerning a special master’s reports and recommendations, preservation plans, declarations, exhibits, submissions, a deposition transcript, a hearing transcript, and an order following a hearing.
The court explained that judicial records ordinarily carry a strong presumption of public access. The standard depends on how the records are used. For materials connected to motions more than tangentially related to the underlying claims, a party must show compelling reasons for sealing. For records attached to discovery-related motions, the court applied the good-cause standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The court cautioned that the result could differ under another standard or in another context.
Rulings
The court granted the sealing motions associated with Docket Nos. 619, 621, 630, 632, 634, 636, 651, 690, 694, 704, 708, 713, 718, 739, 751, 753, 757, 761, and 764, as to the portions or documents identified in the order. The reasons generally included that the material contained Google’s confidential and proprietary information about internal systems, projects, databases, data signals, logs, metrics, system designs, and business practices. The court found that disclosure could affect Google’s competitive standing and increase cybersecurity risks. For Docket No. 636, the court also found good cause to protect portions discussing the plaintiffs’ browsing history and related information that had not been made public.
The court denied the sealing request associated with Docket Nos. 716 and 731 as to the specified redacted portions of the plaintiffs’ response to Google’s motion for clarification. The stated reason was that Google represented there was no confidential information requiring sealing. The court then ordered the plaintiffs to file an unredacted version of Docket 717 within seven days of the order’s date, consistent with the denial of the motion to seal at Docket 716.
Effect of the Order
This was an access-to-court-records and discovery-related order. It did not resolve the merits of the underlying dispute between the plaintiffs and Google. The specified portions of most materials remained sealed, while the material covered by the denied request was to be filed without redactions.
Read the full 28-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.