Robert Heath v. Google Inc.

Filing 213


Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 SAN JOSE DIVISION 4 5 ROBERT HEATH, ET AL., Plaintiffs, 6 v. 7 8 Case No. 15-cv-01824-BLF GOOGLE INC., ORDER RE STIPULATION REGARDING REDACTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SAC AND PROPOSED SAC Defendant. 9 10 The parties dispute which portions of Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a Second United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Amended Complaint (“SAC”) and proposed SAC should be sealed. On August 14, 2017, the 12 Court issued a reasoned order on the sealing dispute and ordered the parties to “meet and confer 13 and file a stipulation with a more narrowly redacted proposed SAC in light of the Court’s 14 reasoning.” ECF 198. On August 24, 2017, the parties stipulated to the redaction of many 15 contested provisions, but were unable to agree as to whether the Court’s Order requires unsealing 16 the remaining provisions. ECF 211. The Court has reviewed the parties’ stipulation and the unredacted version of Plaintiffs’ 17 18 proposed SAC. ECF 210, 210-1. The Court APPROVES the parties’ stipulation as to the portions 19 of the documents to be sealed or not sealed, in accordance with the following chart from the 20 parties: 21 22 23 24 25 Document and Line(s) SAC 2:20 Pls.’ Mot. to Amend 8:14-15 SAC 8:27 SAC 9:1-3 Pls.’ Mot. to Amend 8:17 26 SAC 9:6-8 27 SAC 9:8-11 28 SAC 9:20-10:1 Parties’ Agreement as to the Excerpts Unredacted Unredacted First sentence of the excerpt to be redacted; second sentence of the excerpt to be unredacted First clause of the sentence to be redacted; second clause of the sentence to be unredacted Unredacted with the exception of the last 5 words of the sentence Unredacted, beginning with, “When older….” 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pls.’ Mot. to Amend 8:20 SAC 10:2-5 First clause of the excerpt to be redacted; remainder to be unredacted First four words of the line to be unredacted First excerpt to be redacted; remainder to be unredacted Unredacted SAC 10:8 SAC 10:8-19 Pls.’ Mot. to Amend 8:21-22 SAC 10:22-23 In line with the Court’s reasoning in its prior Order on this sealing dispute, the Court rules on the remaining portions of Plaintiffs’ documents as follows: Google has not established compelling reasons to seal the portions of Plaintiffs’ SAC at 8 9:3-6 or Plaintiffs’ motion to amend at 8:18-19. These portions shall be unredacted in Plaintiffs’ 9 public filing of these documents. These comments do not reflect Google’s sensitive interview questions and techniques. Although Google is correct that the disputed excerpt is not “only” the 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 interviewer’s impression of a specific candidate, it is an interviewer’s impression of how he or she 12 would have fared as a candidate, which is not competitively sensitive information. 13 However, Google has articulated compelling reasons to seal Plaintiffs’ proposed SAC at 14 9:14-20 and the corresponding portion of Plaintiffs’ motion to amend at 8:19. The request is 15 narrowly tailored to sealable material, and as such these portions shall be redacted in Plaintiffs’ 16 public filing. This information reflects the type of interview questions Google asks applicants. As 17 the Court previously held, “[d]isclosure of interview questions could harm Google’s efforts to vet 18 and hire employees by providing job applicants and competitors access to the ‘test questions’ in 19 advance of the exam.” ECF 198. 20 Pursuant to this Order, the Court’s August 14, 2017 Order, and the parties’ stipulation, the 21 parties shall submit revised filings of Plaintiffs’ motion to amend and proposed SAC reflecting the 22 appropriate redactions by September 1, 2017. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 26 27 Dated: August 25, 2017 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 28 2

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?