Brown v. Google LLC
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-03664
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 15
In Brown v. Google LLC, Magistrate Judge Van Keulen granted motions to seal specified discovery materials containing Google’s confidential business information.
The order affects the plaintiffs, Google LLC, and the public’s access to specified portions of discovery-related court filings. Google’s confidential business and cybersecurity interests were the stated basis for sealing the material.
What happened
Brown v. Google LLC involved administrative motions by the parties to seal materials submitted with discovery-related disputes, including materials concerning plaintiffs’ request to depose Google CEO Sundar Pichai.
The court applied the lower “good cause” standard because the materials were connected to discovery motions rather than motions addressing the case’s merits. It found that the identified material included confidential information about Google’s internal systems, projects, strategies, business practices, and security.
The court granted the sealing motions as to the specified portions, including one exhibit sealed entirely, because public disclosure could harm Google’s competitive position and increase cybersecurity risks. The order was issued by Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen.
The detailed version
- Brown v. Google LLC · No. 4:20-cv-03664
- Yvonne Rogers
- Sept. 26, 2022
Background
The court considered three administrative motions for permission to file materials under seal: Docket Nos. 634, 653, and 677. The materials were associated with discovery disputes in the case, including plaintiffs’ renewed request to depose Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Google’s response to that request, deposition excerpts, declarations, exhibits, and plaintiffs’ reply.
Legal standard
Court records are generally presumed to be open to public inspection. The court explained that the required showing depends on how the records are being used. Records connected more than tangentially to the merits generally require compelling reasons for sealing. Records connected to discovery-related matters that are not directed to the merits may be sealed upon a showing of good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).
The court applied the good-cause standard because the materials were submitted in connection with discovery-related motions rather than a motion concerning the merits of the case. It also stated that it might reach different conclusions under a different standard or in a different context.
Rulings
For Docket No. 634, the court granted the motion as to specified portions of plaintiffs’ renewed request to depose Sundar Pichai, and specified portions of several exhibits and deposition transcripts. The court ordered Exhibit A to the Baeza Declaration to be sealed entirely. The other materials were sealed only as to the listed pages or portions.
For Docket No. 653, the court granted the motion as to specified portions of Google’s response to the request to depose Sundar Pichai and specified portions of deposition excerpts involving Lorraine Twohill, Rory McClelland, and Adhya.
For Docket No. 677, the court granted the motion as to specified portions of plaintiffs’ reply supporting their renewed request to depose Sundar Pichai.
The court found good cause because the material contained Google’s confidential and proprietary information about sensitive features of its internal systems and operations, including internal projects, identifiers, proprietary functions, strategies, system designs, business practices, proposals, metrics, and communication channels. The court stated that the information was kept confidential in the ordinary course of Google’s business and was not generally known to the public or Google’s competitors. It also found that disclosure could affect Google’s competitive standing and increase cybersecurity risks.
Read the full 15-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.