Robert Heath v. Google Inc.

Filing 105

ORDER REGARDING 74 , 94 , 102 SEALING MOTIONS PERTAINING TO MOTION FOR CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION BRIEFING. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 8/17/2016. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/17/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 ROBERT HEATH, et al., Case No. 15-cv-01824-BLF Plaintiffs, 8 v. 9 10 GOOGLE INC., Defendant. ORDER REGARDING SEALING MOTIONS PERTAINING TO MOTION FOR CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION BRIEFING [Re: ECF 74, 94, 102] United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal portions of their 13 14 briefing and exhibits in connection with the pending motion for conditional certification. ECF 74, 15 94, 102. For the reasons stated below, the motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN 16 PART. 17 I. 18 LEGAL STANDARD “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 19 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 20 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 21 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are 22 “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of 23 “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 24 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed 25 upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. 26 In addition, sealing motions filed in this district must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing 27 only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). A party moving to seal a document in whole or in 28 part must file a declaration establishing that the identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79- 1 5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain 2 documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are 3 sealable.” Id. 4 II. DISCUSSION 5 The Court has reviewed the parties’ sealing motions and respective declarations in support 6 thereof. The Court finds the parties have articulated compelling reasons to seal certain portions of 7 most of the submitted documents. The proposed redactions are also narrowly tailored. The 8 Court’s rulings on the sealing request are set forth in the tables below: 9 A. ECF 74 Identification of Documents to be Sealed Portions of Motion for Conditional Certification 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Description of Documents References below exhibits 12 13 14 15 Exhibits 1-2 Exhibits 4-5 and 15-19 16 17 Exhibits 3, 8, 13-14 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B. ECF 94 Identification of Documents to be Sealed Google’s Opposition to Plaintiff Fillekes’ Motion For Conditional Certification and Heath’s Partial Joinder Declaration of Brian Ong In Support of Google’s Opposition to Plaintiff Fillekes’ Motion For Conditional Certification of Collective Action and Heath’s Partial Joinder Exhibits 1-9 Discloses confidential information about Google’s hiring process Employment applications containing personal information Designated Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only by Google Description of Documents References exhibits filed in connection with Motion and below Contains personal information of non-party declarants Confidential gHire records for nine separate candidates for employment positions at 2 Court’s Order GRANTED for any portions referencing Exhibits 1-2, 4-5, 15-19 and DENIED for any portions referencing Exhibits 3, 8, 13-14. GRANTED GRANTED DENIED because supporting declaration at ECF 80 did not provide any reasons to seal. Court’s Order GRANTED except for any portion referencing Exhibit 3, 8, and 13-14 to the Motion for Conditional Certification. GRANTED GRANTED 1 Exhibits 10-12 2 3 4 C. ECF 102 Identification of Documents to be Sealed Reply Brief 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 III. Google Confidential gHire Committee notes Description of Documents References Exhibit 1 to the Motion for Conditional Certification, which contains confidential information about Google’s hiring process GRANTED Court’s Order GRANTED ORDER For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motions at ECF 74, 94, 102 are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(2), for any request that has been denied because the party designating a document as confidential or subject to a protective order has not provided sufficient reasons to seal, the submitting party must file the unredacted (or lesser redacted) documents into the public record no earlier than 4 days and no later than 10 days form the filing of this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 17, 2016 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?