Brown v. Google LLC
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-03664
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Brown v. Google LLC, Judge Van Keulen granted three motions to seal portions of discovery-related filings containing Google’s confidential business information.
Google and the plaintiffs, whose specified discovery-related filings were affected, as well as members of the public seeking access to those portions of the court record.
What happened
Brown v. Google LLC involved three requests to keep portions of documents filed during discovery disputes from public view. The documents included Google’s updates about preserving information, a supplement, the plaintiffs’ response, and supporting declarations.
The court applied a lower secrecy standard because the documents concerned discovery matters rather than the merits of the case. The court found that the specified portions contained confidential information about Google’s internal systems, projects, data signals, logs, strategies, and business practices.
The court granted all three administrative motions as to the listed portions of the documents, finding that disclosure could harm Google’s competitive position and increase cybersecurity risks. Judge Susan Van Keulen entered the order on August 9, 2022.
The detailed version
- Brown v. Google LLC · No. 4:20-cv-03664
- Yvonne Rogers
- Aug. 9, 2022
Background
The court considered administrative motions to file under seal materials connected to discovery disputes. The motions were docketed as Dkt. Nos. 641, 645, and 649; the order also referred to Dkt. 673.
Legal standard
Court records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. The required showing depends on how closely the records relate to the merits of the case. Records connected to motions more than tangentially related to the underlying claims generally require compelling reasons for sealing. Records connected to motions not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits may be sealed under the lower good-cause standard in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The court also noted that parties must follow Civil Local Rule 79-5.
The court held that the good-cause standard applied because the materials were submitted in connection with discovery-related motions rather than motions concerning the merits of the case. The court cautioned that it could reach different conclusions under a different standard or in a different setting.
Rulings
The court granted Dkt. 641 as to specified portions of Google’s administrative motion about its preservation efforts and request for relief from a July 30 deadline. The sealed portions were on pages 1:16–24, 2:2–7, and 2:10–19. The court also granted the motion as to specified portions of the supporting declaration of Benjamin, on pages 1:22, 1:26–27, 2:1–6, 2:8, 2:10–24, 3:6–12, 3:15, and 3:17.
The court granted Dkt. 645 as to pages 2:2–17 of Google’s supplement concerning its preservation efforts and deadline request.
The court granted Dkt. 649, also referring to Dkt. 673, as to specified portions of the plaintiffs’ response to Google’s administrative motions and the declaration of Mark Mao. The sealed portions of the response were on pages 1:21, 1:23–27, 2:27, and 3:27. The sealed portions of the declaration were on pages 2:16 and 2:20.
For each ruling, the court found that the information contained confidential and proprietary details about sensitive features of Google’s internal systems and operations, including projects, data signals, logs, and proprietary functions. The court stated that the information was kept confidential in the ordinary course of Google’s business, was not generally known to the public or competitors, and could reveal internal strategies, system designs, and business practices. Disclosure could affect Google’s competitive position and increase cybersecurity risks. Judge Susan Van Keulen entered the order on August 9, 2022.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.