In re Google RTB Consumer Privacy Litigation

Background

Google filed an administrative motion asking the court to seal portions of the transcript from a May 16, 2023 discovery hearing. This was Google’s second request concerning that transcript. The court had denied the first request without prejudice, noting that the hearing was open to the public, the request was untimely, and Google had not shown good cause to seal the identified material.

The plaintiffs opposed the renewed motion. They argued that Google had not shown good cause, that much of the information was already publicly available, that Google’s supporting declaration from counsel was improper or insufficient, and that the request was untimely.

Legal standard

Because the hearing involved discovery and did not address the merits of the parties’ claims or defenses, the court applied the lower “good cause” standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Under that standard, the court considered whether disclosure could cause a specific prejudice or harm. Google argued that disclosure would reveal internal strategies, system designs, and business practices and could allow cybercriminals to target its users or compromise data sources, including data logs.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that Google’s revised redactions were narrower and focused on information about its internal systems and operations. The court agreed that some information Google sought to protect had been publicly disclosed or consisted only of high-level descriptions that were not appropriate subjects for sealing. The court also considered the plaintiffs’ argument that related-case filings had disclosed the information, but found that those filings did not reveal everything Google sought to seal.

The court noted that a declaration from counsel may be less persuasive than a declaration from a knowledgeable employee. Nevertheless, it relied principally on Google’s arguments, the existing record concerning public disclosures, and its examination of the material requested for sealing.

Disposition

The court granted in part Google’s motion to seal. It ordered the highlighted portions of the May 16, 2023 hearing transcript identified in the order to be filed under seal. The court found that Google had not established good cause to seal four other listed passages: Dkt. No. 571-2 at 15:15–16, 17:3–4, 40:3, and 40:5. The clerk was directed to coordinate with the certified transcriber to prepare and file a redacted transcript. The order terminated Dkt. No. 571.