Brown v. Google LLC
Brown v. Google LLC
Case 4:20-cv-03664-YGR (N.D. Cal. 2023)
April 4, 2023

van Keulen, Susan,  United States Magistrate Judge

Proportionality
Protective Order
Download PDF
To Cite List
Summary
Plaintiffs and Google are in a dispute and have filed motions regarding additional discovery sanctions. Google has requested to seal certain materials associated with the motions, and the Court has determined that there is good cause to seal the materials. Therefore, the Court has ordered that the materials be sealed.
Additional Decisions
CHASOM BROWN, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
GOOGLE LLC, Defendant
Case No. 20-cv-03664-YGR (SVK)
United States District Court, N.D. California
Filed April 04, 2023
van Keulen, Susan, United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Dkt. Nos. 614, 623, 655, 682, 695, 707, 732, 734, 797, 809, 815, 827, 833, 843, 848, 857, 892, 893

As directed by the Court (see Dkt. 902), Google has submitted an omnibus proposed order (Dkt. 915) in connection with pending motions to file under seal materials associated with Plaintiffs’ Motion for Additional Discovery Sanctions and Google’s Motion to Deprecate (the “Motions to Seal”). Dkts. 614, 623, 655, 682, 695, 707, 732, 734, 797, 809, 815, 827, 833, 843, 848, 857, 892, 893.

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:





















































































































SO ORDERED.