Woods v. Google, Inc.

Filing 165

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd granting in part and denying in part 157 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal and Lock Docket Entries; denying 160 Motion for Leave to File. Dkt. Nos. 150 and 150-1 shall be temporarily locked. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/19/2014)

1

*E-Filed: June 19, 2014*

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

8

United States District Court

7

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

RICK WOODS, Individually and On Behalf
of Others Similarly Situated,

12
Plaintiff,
13

v.

14

GOOGLE, INC.,

15

Defendant.
____________________________________/

No. C11-01263 EJD (HRL)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART GOOGLE’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
FILE UNDER SEAL AND LOCK
DOCKET ENTRIES
[Re: Docket No. 157]

16
Rick Woods, on behalf of a putative class, sues Google for its alleged failure to apply certain
17
features of its advertising program as represented. Recently, Woods moved for sanctions against
18
Google for its allege failure to comply with the undersigned’s discovery order. See Dkt. No. 150.
19
Google now moves to seal portions of Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and related Exhibit N
20
because, subsequent to the filing of the motion, Google designated the material as confidential
21
pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order (“SPO”). See Dkt. No. 157. Woods opposes the motion
22
and argues, among other things, that Google waived its confidentiality by failing to timely designate
23
the material as provided in the SPO. See Dkt. No. 158. Google also moves for leave to file a reply,
24
which Woods opposes. See Dkt. Nos. 160, 162.
25
The underlying dispute here is not properly before the Court on an administrative motion.
26
Accordingly, Google’s motion is to file under seal is DENIED without prejudice to bring the matter
27
before the Court in compliance with the applicable provisions of the SPO and the undersigned’s
28

1

Standing Order re: Civil Discovery Disputes.1 Nevertheless, the Court will GRANT Google’s

2

request to lock the docket entries pending the resolution of this dispute. However, the parties must

3

file a Discovery Dispute Joint Report or otherwise come to an agreement without judicial

4

intervention by July 8, 2014, or Google will be deemed to have dropped the dispute and the docket

5

entries will be unlocked.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: June 19, 2014

8

HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1

Google’s motion for leave to file a reply is also denied.
2

1

C11-01263 EJD Notice will be electronically mailed to:

2

Andrew Gordon Pate

3

Brad Edward Seidel

4

Chad Ethan Ihrig

5

Daniel Christopher Mulveny

6

Donald M. Falk [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail]

7
8
9

Edward D. Johnson [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail]
Eric Evans [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
Jeffrey John Angelovich

[e-mail], [e-mail]

11
Jonathan Anderson Helfgott

[e-mail]

12
13

Joseph H. Meltzer [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

14

Margaret Elin Onasch

15

Matthew Leo Mustokoff

16

Naumon A Amjed

[e-mail]

17

Robin Winchester

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

18

Ryan Thomas Degnan

[e-mail]

19

Sean M. Handler , Esq

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

20

Stacey Marie Kaplan

21

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not
registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3