In re Google, Inc. Privacy Policy Litigation
Filing
110
***EFILED IN ERROR, PLEASE SEE ECF NO. 112 *** ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal granting-in-part 108 . (psglc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/9/2015) Modified on 4/10/2015 (ofr, COURT STAFF).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
16
Before the court is an administrative motion to seal several documents. “Historically,
11
12
13
IN RE GOOGLE, INC. PRIVACY POLICY
LITIGATION
14
17
18
Case No. 5:12-cv-01382-PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL
(Re: Docket No. 108)
courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents,
including judicial records and documents.’” 1 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a
19
20
‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 2 Parties seeking to seal judicial
21
records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with
22
“compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring
23
disclosure. 3
24
25
26
1
Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v.
Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)).
2
Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)).
3
Id. at 1178-79.
27
28
1
Case No. 5:12-cv-01382-PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
However, “while protecting the public’s interest in access to the courts, we must remain
1
2
mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm
3
their competitive interest.” 4 Records attached to nondispositive motions therefore are not subject
4
to the strong presumption of access. 5 Because the documents attached to nondispositive motions
5
6
7
8
9
“are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties moving
to seal must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). 6 As with dispositive motions, the
standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a “particularized showing” 7 that “specific
prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. 8 “Broad allegations of harm,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. 9 A protective order
11
sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that good
12
cause exists to keep the documents sealed, 10 but a blanket protective order that allows the parties to
13
14
designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether
each particular document should remain sealed. 11
15
In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal
16
17
documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to
18
Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document
19
4
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
20
5
See id. at 1180.
21
6
Id. at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
22
7
Id.
23
8
24
Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002);
see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).
9
25
Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).
10
26
See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80.
11
27
28
See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to
designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or
portions thereof, are sealable.”).
2
Case No. 5:12-cv-01382-PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
1
is “sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under
2
the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and
3
must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” 12 “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative
4
Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection
5
79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” 13
6
With these standards in mind, the court rules on the instant motion as follows:
7
8
9
Motion
to Seal
Result
Exhibit B to the
Declaration of James J.
Sabella
DENIED
No declaration in
support filed with the
court as required by
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
108
Exhibit D to the
Declaration of James J.
Sabella
DENIED
No declaration in
support filed with the
court as required by
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
108
Exhibit J to the Declaration
of James J. Sabella
SEALED
Narrowly tailored to
personal information.
108
Exhibit K to the
Declaration of James J.
Sabella
SEALED
Narrowly tailored to
personal information.
108
Exhibit L to the
Declaration of James J.
Sabella
SEALED
Narrowly tailored to
personal information.
108
Opposition to Defendant
Google, Inc.’s Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs’
DENIED
No declaration in
support filed with the
court as required by
11
12
13
14
15
Reason/Explanation
108
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
Document to be Sealed
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
12
Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed
order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” which “lists in table format each
document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an
“unredacted version of the document” that indicates “by highlighting or other clear method, the
portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted version.”
Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d).
13
27
28
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). The Civil Local Rules have recently been amended shortening the time
available to the designating party to file a supporting declaration from seven days to four days. As
this rule change was only recently implemented the court applies the prior form of Civ. L.R. 79-5
for the purposes of this order.
3
Case No. 5:12-cv-01382-PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?