In re Google RTB Consumer Privacy Litigation
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:21-cv-02155
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In re Google RTB Consumer Privacy Litigation: Judge Demarchi ordered specified discovery materials sealed because they contained confidential Google information.
Google LLC, the plaintiffs, and members of the public seeking access to the specified court filings.
What happened
In In re Google RTB Consumer Privacy Litigation, the parties submitted a joint letter about a discovery dispute. Google asked to keep portions of the letter and related filings from public view because they contained confidential information about its data signals, business practices, internal projects, and financial investigations.
The court applied the lower “good cause” standard because the discovery dispute was not about the merits of the claims or defenses. It found good cause to seal specified portions of the joint letter brief and ordered the parties’ supplemental submission, plaintiffs’ opposition to Google’s motion to strike, and Google’s sealing motion to remain sealed.
Judge Demarchi also noted that the supplemental declaration and exhibits had already been struck from the record without prejudice, and that a redacted version of the joint letter was already publicly filed. The court required no further action from the parties and ordered that the specified materials remain sealed.
The detailed version
- In re Google RTB Consumer Privacy Litigation · No. 4:21-cv-02155
- Yvonne Rogers
- Sept. 6, 2022
Background
The parties filed a joint letter brief concerning a discovery dispute. Because the brief contained information that defendant Google LLC had designated as confidential, it was provisionally filed under seal. Google, as the party that designated the information as confidential, submitted reasons supporting the sealing request. The sealing dispute involved Docket Nos. 290, 292, 294, 300, and 317.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. But that presumption is weaker for filings addressing matters only tangentially related to the merits of a case. Because the underlying discovery dispute did not address the merits of the parties’ claims or defenses, the court applied the “good cause” standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).
Ruling
The court found good cause to seal portions of the joint letter brief because they concerned sensitive information about Google’s data signals, internal strategy and business practices, internal projects, and investigations into the financial impact of certain features. It approved sealing the portions highlighted on pages 2 and 7 of the joint letter brief.
The court also addressed a supplemental declaration filed by plaintiffs and its attached exhibits, along with Google’s motion to strike those materials and plaintiffs’ opposition. In an earlier order concerning the discovery dispute, the court struck the declaration of Lesley E. Weaver and its supporting exhibits from the record without prejudice. Because those materials could not be removed from the docket, the court ordered the entirety of plaintiffs’ August 15, 2022 supplemental submission to remain sealed. It also ordered plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion to strike and Google’s administrative motion to seal to remain sealed.
A redacted version of the joint letter brief, reflecting the approved redaction, had already been filed publicly. The court therefore required no further action from the parties and ordered: “IT IS SO ORDERED.”
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.