Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 19, 2022

In re Google RTB Consumer Privacy Litigation

Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Docket
4:21-cv-02155
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In re Google RTB Consumer Privacy Litigation: Judge Demarchi ordered specified discovery materials sealed to protect Google’s confidential internal-system information.

Who this affects

Google LLC and the plaintiffs in the litigation, as well as members of the public seeking access to the identified court filings and exhibits.

What happened

In In re Google RTB Consumer Privacy Litigation, the parties disputed whether Google had complied with its obligation to produce named-plaintiff data. They also submitted materials from an earlier case involving Google and asked to keep five exhibits and parts of two filings temporarily sealed.

Google argued that the materials contained confidential information about its internal systems, data logs, operations, and business practices. Because the dispute concerned discovery rather than the merits of the claims, the court applied the lower standard requiring a specific showing of good cause.

Judge Demarchi found good cause to seal the highlighted portions of the two filings and the five exhibits in their entirety. The court noted that redacted versions of the filings were already publicly filed, ordered the exhibits to remain sealed, and said the parties needed to take no further action.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
In re Google RTB Consumer Privacy Litigation · No. 4:21-cv-02155
Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Date
Dec. 19, 2022

Background

The parties filed a joint letter about a discovery dispute concerning whether defendant Google LLC had complied with its obligations to produce named-plaintiff data. They filed a second joint submission addressing whether materials from an earlier case involving Google supported the plaintiffs’ arguments. The submissions were initially filed provisionally under seal, along with five sealed exhibits.

As the party that had designated the material as confidential, Google filed a motion asking the court to redact portions of the submissions and keep the exhibits sealed. Google argued that the materials contained technical details and identifiers related to sensitive data logs and systems. It asserted that public disclosure could reveal internal strategies, system designs, and business practices connected to its proprietary services.

Sealing Standard

The court explained that judicial records connected to dispositive motions generally receive a strong presumption of public access that can be overcome only by compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings. That heightened standard does not apply equally to material connected only indirectly to the merits of a case. For such material, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) requires a showing of good cause.

The court determined that Google’s motion concerned information submitted in connection with a discovery dispute. Because the dispute did not address the merits of the parties’ claims or defenses, the court applied the good-cause standard.

Ruling

The court found good cause to seal the following material:

- The portions highlighted on pages 1 through 7 of the joint letter concerning named-plaintiff data. - The portions highlighted on pages 1 through 5 of the joint letter concerning use of the earlier case’s materials. - The entirety of Exhibits 1 through 5 to the joint letter concerning use of those materials.

The court noted that redacted versions of the two submissions, reflecting the approved redactions, had already been filed publicly. It ordered the five exhibits to remain sealed in their entirety and stated that no further action was required from the parties. Judge Demarchi entered the order on December 19, 2022.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.