Brown v. Google LLC

Background

The court considered administrative motions for permission to file materials under seal in connection with discovery disputes. The motions were Docket Nos. 781, 799, 805, and 817. The materials included motions, responses, replies, declarations, deposition excerpts, hearing-transcript excerpts, and exhibits.

Legal standard

Court records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. The court explained that the standard for sealing depends on how closely the records relate to the merits of the case. Records tied more than tangentially to the underlying claims require “compelling reasons.” Records connected to matters 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 held that the good-cause standard applied because the requested materials were submitted in connection with discovery-related motions rather than motions concerning the merits of the case. The court noted that it could reach different conclusions under a different standard or in a different context.

Rulings

For Docket No. 781, the court granted the motion as to specified portions of Google’s notice and motion concerning preservation, declarations, and related exhibits. The sealed information concerned confidential and proprietary features of Google’s internal systems and operations, including internal projects, data-signaling and logging systems, databases, metrics, system designs, and business practices. The court found that the information was maintained as confidential, was not generally known to the public or Google’s competitors, and that disclosure could affect Google’s competitive position and increase cybersecurity risks.

For Docket No. 799, the court granted the motion as to specified redacted portions of the plaintiffs’ opposition to Google’s motion concerning preservation and related deposition exhibits. The court found that the information included Google’s confidential data signals, logs, internal projects, code names, databases, data fields, proprietary functions, metrics, strategies, and business practices, and that public disclosure could affect Google’s competitive position or increase cybersecurity risks.

For Docket No. 805, the court granted the motion as to specified portions of Google’s reply, a supporting declaration, and Exhibits 1 through 5. The court found that the requested information concerned confidential and proprietary internal projects, databases, data signals, logs, log names, metrics, and system functions, and that disclosure could affect Google’s competitive standing or increase cybersecurity risks. The court ordered the listed exhibits sealed in their entirety where the order so specified.

For Docket No. 817, the court granted the motion as to specified portions of a joint submission concerning preservation after a class-certification order. The court found that the information included confidential internal metrics, data fields, and processes that were not generally known to the public or Google’s competitors. The court stated that disclosure could affect Google’s competitive position and increase cybersecurity risks.

Disposition and scope

The court granted the four sealing motions as to the specified portions and exhibits identified in the order. The opinion did not decide the merits of the underlying case or the discovery disputes themselves; it addressed only whether the identified materials could be kept from public disclosure.