Calhoun v. Google LLC

Background

The court considered six administrative motions to file materials under seal: Docket Nos. 897, 929, 933, 942, 944, and 949. The materials were associated with discovery disputes, including disputes concerning preservation of documents and related submissions.

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 connected to motions more than tangentially related to the underlying claims require compelling reasons for secrecy. Records connected to motions that are unrelated or only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed on 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 motions concerning the merits of the case. The court also stated that it could reach different conclusions under a different standard or in a different context.

Rulings

The court granted Docket No. 897 as to specified portions of Google’s notice of motion, motion for relief regarding preservation, and supporting declarations and exhibits. The court granted Docket No. 929 as to specified portions of Google’s administrative motion and related preservation materials.

The court granted Docket No. 933 as to specified portions of the plaintiffs’ opposition to Google’s motion for relief from the modified preservation plan and as to a portion of an exhibit to a joint declaration. The court granted Docket No. 942 as to specified portions of Google’s reply and sealed three identified exhibits entirely. The court granted Docket No. 944 as to specified portions of Trebicka Exhibit A, and granted Docket No. 949 as to specified portions of Google’s supplemental submission concerning preservation.

The court found that the information approved for sealing included confidential and proprietary information about Google’s internal systems and operations, projects, databases, data sources, data logging systems, internal logs and log names, proprietary functionalities, internal strategies, system designs, business practices, and internal metrics such as volumes and costs associated with particular data sources. The court stated that the information was maintained as confidential in the ordinary course of Google’s business and was not generally known to the public or Google’s competitors. It further found that disclosure could affect Google’s competitive standing and increase the risk that third parties could use the information to compromise Google’s internal practices relating to competing products.

Disposition

The court granted all six administrative motions to file under seal as to the specified portions, with some exhibits sealed entirely. The order does not decide the merits of the underlying case.