Rodriguez v. Google LLC

Background

The plaintiffs and Google filed an omnibus motion—one motion addressing multiple requests—to seal portions of materials related to the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, expert reports and appendices, Google’s opposition to class certification, reply briefing, and Google’s motion to exclude the opinion of the plaintiffs’ damages expert. The opinion describes the case as a privacy action.

Legal standard

The court explained that court records are generally presumed to be open to the public and that a sealing request must be narrowly tailored. Depending on the type of filing, a party seeking to seal material must show either “compelling reasons” or “good cause.” When compelling reasons are required, the court balances the interests supporting secrecy against the public’s interest in understanding the judicial process. Embarrassment, possible incrimination, or the possibility of further litigation, without more, does not justify sealing.

Court’s analysis

Google asked to seal material it characterized as commercially sensitive, including internal code names, non-public employee email addresses, internal studies and research, business information, internal terms, processes, strategy, and figures. Google argued that disclosure could harm its competitive position or allow improper use of its information. The court found that Google adequately showed compelling reasons for sealing some records, but not others. In particular, the court stated that much of the material would not harm Google’s competitive position and that some material reflected the plaintiffs’ experts’ opinions rather than information vulnerable to improper competitive use.

The court also found that withholding some records could affect information needed to calculate the plaintiffs’ monetary damages. It further found that many requested records were high-level summaries directly related to the plaintiffs’ claims and that some records implicated the public interest in disclosure. The request to seal excerpts revealing the plaintiffs’ private information was granted.

Disposition

The omnibus motion to seal was granted in part and denied in part. The order’s tables identify the portions that may be sealed. The court generally prohibited sealing an entire page, paragraph, or record unless the order specifically allowed it. Where the order stated that material “may be sealed only,” the parties were permitted to redact only the corresponding word or short phrase, not the entire sentence or paragraph unless the whole passage matched the description. The court ordered the plaintiffs and Google to file public versions of the records in compliance with the order.

The opinion does not decide the merits of the underlying privacy claims, class-certification motion, or expert-related disputes.