Olohan v. Google LLC

Background

The court considered a letter motion by Tiffany Miller concerning whether to maintain under seal a final written warning that Google issued her in March 2023. The warning concerned violations of Google policies on harassment, discrimination, retaliation, standards of conduct, and workplace concerns. Ryan Olohan opposed the motion. The warning had previously been provisionally sealed while the issue was being briefed.

In his opposition, Olohan argued that the parties’ confidentiality and protective order did not automatically require the warning to be filed under seal. He also disputed Miller’s characterization of his deposition testimony and argued that the testimony did not withdraw his allegations. Finally, he argued that Miller had not identified specific privacy interests sufficient to overcome the public’s presumptive right to access court filings. The court did not resolve the merits of those arguments.

Court’s Action

The court stated that the parties’ protective order allowed confidential documents to be shared only with a limited number of people. Before filing the warning, Olohan was required to follow paragraph 11 of the court’s Individual Practices, including meeting and conferring with opposing counsel in advance. Based on the court’s inherent authority to manage its docket, the court struck Dkt. 50-1. It expressly took no position on whether the document should ultimately be filed under seal.

The court also reserved ruling on whether Dkts. 59 and 60 should be sealed because those documents had not yet been submitted in support of a motion. The court said either party could submit them by following the procedures in paragraph 11 of its Individual Practices.

Disposition

The clerk was directed to strike Dkt. 50-1 from the docket, and the court terminated the motion at Dkt. 58. The court did not rule on the ultimate propriety of sealing Dkt. 50-1, Dkt. 59, or Dkt. 60 at this stage.