Unlockd Media, Inc. Liquidation Trust v. Google LLC
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-07250
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Unlockd Media v. Google, Judge Gilliam granted motions to seal portions of the original complaint and amended complaint containing confidential business information.
Unlockd Media, Inc. Liquidation Trust, Google LLC, and members of the public seeking access to the complaints were affected. The portions covered by the court’s order will remain under seal.
What happened
In Unlockd Media, Inc. Liquidation Trust v. Google LLC, the plaintiff asked to seal portions of its original complaint and First Amended Complaint. The requested information concerned the company’s advertising business, including click-through rates, revenue per smartphone user, rewards, user attrition, and prospective partners.
The court said filings generally remain public, but confidential business information may be sealed when disclosure could give competitors an unfair advantage. Because the original complaint was replaced before Google answered, the public interest in that filing was limited; the court also found that the same reasons supported sealing both complaints.
The court granted the motion to seal the original complaint and granted the motion to seal the First Amended Complaint. The sealed documents will remain under seal. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. issued the order.
The detailed version
- Unlockd Media, Inc. Liquidation Trust v. Google LLC · No. 4:21-cv-07250
- Haywood Gilliam
- Sept. 30, 2022
Background
Unlockd Media, Inc. Liquidation Trust filed administrative motions to seal portions of its original complaint and First Amended Complaint. The plaintiff sought to protect confidential business and financial information about its technology startup, which allowed smartphone users to receive advertisements when unlocking their phones in exchange for reward points.
The information included advertising-partner click-through rates, average revenue per smartphone user, the dollar values of rewards, user attrition rates, and prospective partners. The plaintiff argued that competitors could use those details to gain an unfair advantage when developing and negotiating competing products.
Legal standard
The court explained that filings connected to dispositive motions generally require “compelling reasons” to overcome the strong presumption of public access. Documents tied to nondispositive motions are generally subject to the lower “good cause” standard. Because a complaint is the foundation of an action, the court applied the compelling-reasons standard to both motions.
Court’s reasoning
The court noted that the original complaint was not relied on because the plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint before Google answered. As a result, the original complaint was less important to the public’s understanding of the proceedings. The court also found that the confidential business information identified by the plaintiff satisfied the compelling-reasons standard because disclosure could allow competitors to gain insight into the company’s business model and strategy.
Disposition
The court granted the motion to seal the original complaint and granted the motion to seal the First Amended Complaint. Under the court’s order, the documents covered by the granted motions will remain under seal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.