In re Google, Inc. Privacy Policy Litigation
Filing
127
ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal granting in part and denying in part 119 . (psglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2015)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
SAN JOSE DIVISION
13
14
IN RE GOOGLE, INC. PRIVACY POLICY
LITIGATION
15
16
17
18
19
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 5:12-cv-01382-PSG
ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL
(Re: Docket No. 119)
Before the court is an administrative motion to seal six documents. “Historically, courts
20
have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including
21
judicial records and documents.’”1 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong
22
presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.”2 Parties seeking to seal judicial records
23
24
25
26
27
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
28
Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)).
1
Case No.: 5:12-cv-01382-PSG
ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL
1
2
relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling
reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.3
3
However, “while protecting the public's interest in access to the courts, we must remain
4
mindful of the parties' right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm
5
their competitive interest.”4 Records attached to nondispositive motions therefore are not subject
6
to the strong presumption of access.5 Because the documents attached to nondispositive motions
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
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a “particularized showing”7 that “specific
11
prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed.8 “Broad allegations of harm,
12
unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice.9 A protective order
13
14
sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that good
cause exists to keep the documents sealed,10 but a blanket protective order that allows the parties to
15
16
17
designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether
each particular document should remain sealed.11
18
3
Id. at 1178-79.
4
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
5
See id. at 1180.
6
Id. at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
7
Id.
19
20
21
22
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).
25
9
26
10
27
11
28
Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).
See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80.
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 RE: MOTION TO SEAL
In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal
1
2
documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to
3
Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document
4
is “sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under
5
6
the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and
must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).”12 “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative
7
8
9
Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection
79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.”13
With these standards in mind, the court rules on the instant motions as follows:
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
Motion
Docket No.
119-3
Docket No.
119-3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Docket No.
119-3
Docket No.
119-3
Docket No.
119-3
Docket No.
119-3
21
Document to be Sealed
Exhibit E to the
Declaration of James J.
Sabella
Exhibit F to the
Declaration of James J.
Sabella
Exhibit G to the
Declaration of James J.
Sabella
Exhibit K to the
Declaration of James J.
Sabella
Result
SEALED.
Exhibit M to the
Declaration of James J.
Sabella
Attachment to Exhibit M
to the Declaration of
James J. Sabella
(“Goldberg Purchases”)
UNSEALED.
SEALED.
SEALED.
SEALED.
SEALED.
Reason/Explanation
Narrowly tailored to personal
information (previously sealed as
Exhibit J, see Docket No. 112).
Narrowly tailored to personal
information (previously sealed as
Exhibit K, see Docket No. 112).
Narrowly tailored to personal
information (previously sealed as
Exhibit L, see Docket No. 112).
Narrowly tailored to confidential
business information (previously
sealed as Exhibit D, see Docket
No. 112).
Not narrowly tailored to
confidential business information.
Narrowly tailored to personal
information.
22
23
24
12
25
26
27
28
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
“unreadacted 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
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
3
Case No.: 5:12-cv-01382-PSG
ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL
1
Within seven days, the designating party may file a more narrowly tailored motion to file
2
Exhibit M under seal. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 79-5, a proposed order must contain a chart
3
specifically showing what the party seeks to seal. An unredacted version must contain highlighting
4
showing the court what the designating party seeks to seal within that document.
5
6
SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 11, 2015
7
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Case No.: 5:12-cv-01382-PSG
ORDER RE: MOTION TO 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?