In re Google RTB Consumer Privacy Litigation

Filing 579

Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi granting 573 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. Signed on 9/11/2023. (vkdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2023)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

IN RE GOOGLE RTB CONSUMER
PRIVACY LITIGATION

Case No.21-cv-02155-YGR (VKD)

8
ORDER GRANTING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
SEAL

9
10

Re: Dkt. No. 573

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Defendant Google LLC (“Google”) has filed an administrative motion to seal portions of

14

an interrogatory response it included, at the Court’s direction, as an exhibit to a supplemental

15

submission regarding a discovery dispute. See Dkt. Nos. 566, 572, 573. Plaintiffs have not

16

responded to Google’s motion.

17

There is a strong presumption in favor of access by the public to judicial records and

18

documents accompanying dispositive motions that can be overcome only by a showing of

19

“compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of

20

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (cleaned up). However, the presumption does

21

not apply equally to a motion addressing matters that are only “tangentially related to the merits of

22

a case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). A

23

party seeking to seal documents or information in connection with such a motion must meet the

24

lower “good cause” standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Id. at 1098-99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at

25

1179-80. The discovery hearing at issue here does not address the merits of either party’s claims

26

or defenses, so the Court applies the “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c).

27
28

Google argues that good cause exists here because the portions of the interrogatory
response it seeks to seal contain “information about the structure and operation of Google’s

1

internal systems and advertising infrastructure, including systems design and capabilities” and

2

“highly sensitive, confidential, and proprietary technical names of internal data logs.” Dkt. No.

3

573 at 2-3. It claims that the release of this information would cause the company “significant

4

competitive harm” and “create[] a risk of cyber security threats.” Id. Google also argues that its

5

“proposed redactions are consistent with the type of information” the Court has sealed in the past

6

in this case. Id. at 3.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

The Court agrees that good cause exists to seal the portions of Google’s June 8, 2023

8

supplemental interrogatory responses identified at Dkt. No. 573-2. The redactions Google

9

proposes are minimal and narrowly tailored to protect from the potential harm that it alleges. See

10

Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(3); Dkt. No. 573-2 at 4-6, 8; see also, e.g., Dkt. No. 540 (sealing information

11

about internal systems which would be valuable to competitors); Dkt. No. 577 (sealing names of

12

internal identifiers and logs). In these circumstances the Court concludes that Google has

13

demonstrated good cause to seal the following material and the Court orders that it be sealed:

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Document

Portions to be filed Under Seal

Google’s Supplemental Objections
and Responses to Plaintiffs’ Fourth
Set of Interrogatories, No. 13

Portion(s) highlighted at Dkt. No.
573-2, page 4-5

Google’s Supplemental Objections
and Responses to Plaintiffs’ Fourth
Set of Interrogatories, No. 14

Portion(s) highlighted at Dkt. No.
573-2, page 6

Google’s Supplemental Objections
and Responses to Plaintiffs’ Fourth
Set of Interrogatories, No. 15

Portion(s) highlighted at Dkt. No.
573-2, page 8

21
22
23
24
25

A redacted version of this document is already available on the public docket. See Dkt.
No. 572-4. Accordingly, no further action is required from the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 11, 2023

26
27
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI
United States Magistrate Judge

28
2