Brown v. Google LLC
Brown v. Google LLC
2022 WL 4227545 (N.D. Cal. 2022)
August 9, 2022
van Keulen, Susan, United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The court ordered that certain ESI related to discovery disputes be sealed, as the party seeking to seal the records demonstrated good cause and followed the proper procedures. The court recognized a general right to access public records, but determined that the ESI was only tangentially related to the underlying cause of action.
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 August 09, 2022
Counsel
John A. Yanchunis, Jean Sutton Martin, Ra Olusegun Amen, Ryan McGee, Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group, Tampa, FL, Alexander Patrick Frawley, Pro Hac Vice, Amy B. Gregory, Pro Hac Vice, Ryan Sila, 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, Sean Phillips Rodriguez, Mark C. Mao, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, San Francisco, CA, Alison Lynn Anderson, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Amanda K. Bonn, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Los Angeles, CA, David Boies, Boies Schiller and Flexner, Armonk, NY, James W. Lee, Rossana Baeza, Boies Schiller Flexner, Miami, FL, Jenna Golda Farleigh, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Seattle, WA, Michael Francis Ram, Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs.Aarti G. Reddy, Cooley LLP, San Francisco, CA, Alyssa G. Olson, Crystal Nix-Hines, Stephen Andrew Broome, Marie M. Hayrapetian, Viola Trebicka, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Andrew H. Schapiro, Pro Hac Vice, Joseph H. Margolies, Pro Hac Vice, Teuta Fani, 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, Donald Seth Fortenbery, New York, NY, 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 GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 641, 645, 649
*1 Before the Court are administrative motions to file under seal materials associated with discovery disputes in this case. Dkt. 641, 645, 649; see also Dkt. 673.
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. 641
*2 2. Dkt. 645
*3 SO ORDERED.