Brown v. Google LLC
Brown v. Google LLC
2022 WL 816078 (N.D. Cal. 2022)
March 17, 2022
van Keulen, Susan, United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The court recognized a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents. The court then considered motions to seal, supporting declarations, and the pleadings on file, and ordered that the documents be sealed. The standard for sealing ESI was set, requiring the party seeking to seal material to include proposed language regarding the reason(s) for the Court's ruling.
Additional Decisions
CHASOM BROWN, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
GOOGLE LLC, Defendant
v.
GOOGLE LLC, Defendant
Case No. 20-cv-03664-YGR (SVK)
United States District Court, N.D. California
Signed March 17, 2022
Counsel
John A. Yanchunis, Jean Sutton Martin, Olusegun Amen, Ra, Pro Hac Vice, Ryan McGee, Morgan and Morgan, P.A., Tampa, FL, Alexander Patrick Frawley, Pro Hac Vice, Amy B. Gregory, Pro Hac Vice, Shawn Jonathan Rabin, Steven M. Shepard, Pro Hac Vice, William Christopher Carmody, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., New York, NY, Alexander Justin Konik, Antonio Lavalle Ingram, II, Beko Osiris Ra Reblitz-Richardson, Erika Britt Nyborg-Burch, Pro Hac Vice, Sean Phillips Rodriguez, Hsiao C. Mao, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, San Francisco, CA, Amanda K. Bonn, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Los Angeles, CA, David Boies, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Armonk, NY, James W. Lee, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Miami, FL, Jenna Golda Farleigh, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Seattle, WA, Michael Francis Ram, Morgan and Morgan, P.A., San Francisco, CA, Rossana Baeza, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff Chasom Brown.John A. Yanchunis, Jean Sutton Martin, Olusegun Amen, Ra, Pro Hac Vice, Ryan McGee, Morgan and Morgan, P.A., Tampa, FL, Alexander Patrick Frawley, Pro Hac Vice, Amy B. Gregory, Pro Hac Vice, Shawn Jonathan Rabin, Steven M. Shepard, Pro Hac Vice, William Christopher Carmody, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., New York, NY, Alexander Justin Konik, Antonio Lavalle Ingram, II, Beko Osiris Ra Reblitz-Richardson, Sean Phillips Rodriguez, Hsiao C. Mao, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, San Francisco, CA, Amanda K. Bonn, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Los Angeles, CA, David Boies, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Armonk, NY, James W. Lee, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Miami, FL, Jenna Golda Farleigh, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Seattle, WA, Rossana Baeza, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff Maria Nguyen.
John A. Yanchunis, Jean Sutton Martin, Olusegun Amen, Ra, Pro Hac Vice, Ryan McGee, Morgan and Morgan, P.A., Tampa, FL, Alexander Patrick Frawley, Pro Hac Vice, Amy B. Gregory, Pro Hac Vice, Shawn Jonathan Rabin, Steven M. Shepard, Pro Hac Vice, William Christopher Carmody, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., New York, NY, Alexander Justin Konik, Antonio Lavalle Ingram, II, Beko Osiris Ra Reblitz-Richardson, Erika Britt Nyborg-Burch, Pro Hac Vice, Sean Phillips Rodriguez, Hsiao C. Mao, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, San Francisco, CA, Amanda K. Bonn, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Los Angeles, CA, David Boies, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Armonk, NY, James W. Lee, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Miami, FL, Jenna Golda Farleigh, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Seattle, WA, Rossana Baeza, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff William Byatt.
Aarti G. Reddy, Cooley LLP, San Francisco, CA, Alyssa G. Olson, Crystal Nix-Hines, Stephen Andrew Broome, Viola Trebicka, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Andrew H. Schapiro, Pro Hac Vice, Teuta Fani, Pro Hac Vice, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP, Chicago, IL, Brett Watkins, Pro Hac Vice, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP, Houston, TX, Carl Spilly, Pro Hac Vice, Washington, DC, Diane M. Doolittle, Sara E. Jenkins, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Redwood Shores, CA, Jomaire Alicia Crawford, Pro Hac Vice, Josef Teboho Ansorge, Pro Hac Vice, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY, Jonathan Sze Ming Tse, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP, San Francisco, CA, Thao T. Thai, Redwood Shores, CA, William Anthony Burck, Pro Hac Vice, Xi Gao, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
van Keulen, Susan, United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER INSTRUCTING PARTIES RE FUTURE SEALING MOTIONS ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL
ORDER INSTRUCTING PARTIES RE FUTURE SEALING MOTIONS
*1 In the proposed orders on future sealing motions relating to discovery-related filings, the Court requests that the party seeking to seal material include for the Court's consideration proposed language regarding the reason(s) for the Court's ruling (see, e.g., Dkt. 337-2), rather than simply cross-referencing the document(s) filed in support of the sealing request (see., e.g., Dkt. 470-2).
ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Before the Court are several administrative motions to file under seal materials associated with discovery disputes in this case. Dkt. 410, 423, 436, 452, 455, 463, 469, 470, 475; see also Dkt. 421, 459.
Courts recognize a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). A request to seal court records therefore starts with a “strong presumption in favor of access.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The standard for overcoming the presumption of public access to court records depends on the purpose for which the records are filed with the court. A party seeking to seal court records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” must demonstrate “compelling reasons” that support secrecy. Ctr. For Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016). For records attached to motions that re “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of the case,” the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) applies. Id.; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. A party moving to seal court records must also comply with the procedures established by Civil Local Rule 79-5.
Here, the “good cause” standard applies because the information the parties seek to seal was submitted to the Court in connection with discovery-related motions, rather than a motion that concerns the merits of the case. The Court may reach different conclusions regarding sealing these documents under different standards or in a different context. Having considered the motions to seal, supporting declarations, and the pleadings on file, and good cause appearing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. Dkt. 410
2. Dkt. 423
3. Dkt. 436
4. Dkt. 452
5. Dkt. 455
6. Dkt. 463
7. Dkt. 469
8. Dkt. 470
9. Dkt. 475
*5 SO ORDERED.