Williamson v. Google Inc.

Filing 230

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SEAL AT ECF 223 . Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 4/10/2018. (blflc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/10/2018)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

RICHARD A. WILLIAMSON,
Plaintiff,

8

GOOGLE LLC,

[Re: ECF 223]

Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO SEAL AT ECF 223

v.

9
10

Case No. 15-cv-00966-BLF

12
Plaintiff Williamson filed a motion to seal portions of his motion for relief from

13
14

nondispositive pretrial order of magistrate judge regarding joint brief at ECF 195 and two exhibits

15

attached to his motion. ECF 223. Defendant Google LLC (“Google”) has designated the

16

information sought to be sealed as confidential. Id. For the reasons stated below, the Court

17

GRANTS the motion.

18
19

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records

20

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of

21

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435

22

U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong

23

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

24

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to

25

motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden

26

of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of

27

access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d

28

1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79.

1

However, “while protecting the public’s interest in access to the courts, we must remain

2

mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm

3

their competitive interest.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228–29 (Fed.

4

Cir. 2013). Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the

5

merits of a case” therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto

6

Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need

7

for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are

8

often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving

9

to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of
Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

standard requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the

12

information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,

13

1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated

14

by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins.

15

Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). A protective order sealing the documents during

16

discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that good cause exists to keep the

17

documents sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80, but a blanket protective order that allows

18

the parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to

19

determine whether each particular document should remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A)

20

(“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents

21

as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”).

22

In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal

23

documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R.

24

79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is

25

“sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under

26

the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and

27

must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the

28

submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable
2

1

material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be

2

sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unredacted version of the document” that indicates “by

3

highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the

4

redacted version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative

5

Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection

6

79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

7

II.

DISCUSSION
The sealing motion relates to Williamson’s motion for relief from nondispositive pretrial

8

order of magistrate judge, which is a nondispositive filing as it will not resolve the dispute on the

10

merits. Thus, the instant motion is resolved under the good cause standard. See Kamakana, 447

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

F.3d at 1179. Google is the party that has designated the information sought to be sealed in the

12

instant motion as confidential. After reviewing Google’s declaration, the Court finds that Google

13

has shown good cause to seal portions of the submitted documents and that the proposed

14

redactions are narrowly tailored. Accordingly, the Court rules on the instant motion as follows:

15
16

ECF
No.
223-4

Document to be
Sealed
Plaintiff’s motion for
relief from
nondispositive
pretrial order of
magistrate judge
regarding joint brief
at ECF 195

223-6

Ex. A (document
GRANTED in
produced by Google) its entirety.

17
18
19
20

Result

Reasoning

GRANTED as
to yellow
highlighted
portions.

The proposed redacted portions contain highly
confidential information relating to Google’s
revenue, how Google maintains and reports
financial information, and the design and
operation of Google’s ad selection
architecture. Mehta Decl. ¶ 6, ECF 228. Such
information pertains to Google’s non-public
business, technical and financial information.
Id.
The document contains Google’s highly
confidential financial and technical
information related to its ad selection
architecture as well as personal identification
information about a Google employee. Mehta
Decl., ¶ 7. Disclosure of the information
contained therein would cause competitive
harm to Google. Id.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1

223-8

2

Ex. B (deposition
testimony of
Google’s witness
Megan Davy)

GRANTED in
its entirety.

3
4
5

III.

The document contains excerpts of the
deposition testimony of Google’s witness
Megan Davy. Mehta Decl. ¶ 8. The excerpted
portions of Ms. Davy’s testimony discuss
highly confidential details on how Google
maintains and reports financial information.
Id.

ORDER

6

For the foregoing reasons, Williamson’s motion at ECF 223 is GRANTED.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: April 10, 2018
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4