AGIS Software Development LLC v. Google LLC
- Beth Freeman
- 5:22-cv-04826
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In AGIS Software Development v. Google, Judge Freeman granted defendants’ motion to seal limited confidential product and business information.
Google LLC and the public: specified highlighted portions of two exhibits may remain sealed, while public versions with permitted redactions must be filed.
What happened
AGIS Software Development LLC v. Google LLC concerned defendants’ request to seal exhibits attached to their reply supporting a motion for summary judgment. The requested material involved product design, development, operation, testing, internal functionality, business decisions, and pricing models.
The court applied the stricter “compelling reasons” standard because the exhibits were connected to summary-judgment briefing. It found that the information was confidential, not publicly disclosed, and that disclosure could give competitors an unfair advantage or cause competitive harm.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted the motion to seal the specified highlighted portions of two exhibits. The defendants had to file public versions with the allowed redactions by September 4, 2023.
The detailed version
- AGIS Software Development LLC v. Google LLC · No. 5:22-cv-04826
- Beth Freeman
- Aug. 21, 2023
Background
The court considered defendants’ administrative motion to seal exhibits attached to their reply in support of their motion for summary judgment. The exhibits contained information about product design, development, operation, testing, and internal functionality, as well as business decision-making and pricing models. Defendants stated that they did not publicly disclose this information and that disclosure could give competitors an unfair business advantage.
Legal standard
Judicial records and filings connected more than tangentially to the merits of a case may be sealed only for “compelling reasons.” Because the motion concerned briefing on a motion for summary judgment, the court applied that standard. The court also considered the requirements of Civil Local Rule 79-5, including that sealing requests be supported, narrowly tailored, and limited to material that qualifies for protection.
Ruling
The court found that the identified material contained confidential business information, including internal product development and functionality, pricing models, assessments of competitors’ products, and internal development timelines. The court determined that disclosure would cause competitive harm and granted the motion.
The ruling covered highlighted portions of Document Bates-labeled WAZE-AGIS00026406-26420, specifically pages ending in -26408 through -26420, and highlighted portions of Document Bates-labeled WAZE-AGIS00028148-28152, specifically pages ending in -28148 through -28152. Defendants were ordered to file public versions of the documents with the permitted redactions by September 4, 2023.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.