Robert Heath v. Google Inc.

Filing 334

ORDER GRANTING 329 , 330 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO REDACT ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT GOOGLE LLC'S MOTION TO DECERTIFY COLLECTIVE ACTION. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 8/14/2018. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/14/2018)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

ROBERT HEATH, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

8
v.

9
10

GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

13

15
16
17

ORDER GRANTING GOOGLE LLC’S
UNOPPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO REDACT ORDER
DENYING DEFENDANT GOOGLE
LLC’S MOTION TO DECERTIFY
CLASS
[Re: ECF 329, 330]

12

14

Case No. 15-cv-01824-BLF

On August 8, 2018, Defendant Google LLC (“Google”) filed an Unopposed
Administrative Motion to Redact Portions of the Court’s Order Denying Defendant Google LLC’s
Motion to Decertify Class (ECF 317) pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11 and the Court’s Order Re:
Redaction of Order Denying Defendant Google LLC’s Motion to Decertify Collective Action
(ECF 318). See ECF 329, 330.1

18

“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
21
22

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435
U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, filings that are “more than tangentially related to the
merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for

23
Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only
24

tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at

25
1097.
26
27
1

28

Google filed two separate motions to seal the record that appear to be substantively identical.
See ECF 329, 330. This Order resolves both motions.

1

Sealing motions filed in this district also must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of

2

sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). A party moving to seal a document in whole or in part

3

must file a declaration establishing that the identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-

4

5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain

5

documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are

6

sealable.” Id.

7

The Court has reviewed the administrative motion and the declaration submitted in support

8

thereof (ECF 329, 329-1; 330, 330-1) and finds that the parties have articulated compelling

9

reasons and good cause to seal portions of the Order Denying Defendant Google LLC’s Motion to
Decertify Class. The Court has previously sealed the same and similar information as that

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

included in those portions Google seeks to redact, which include commercial figures and

12

statements from gHire documents and expert reports analyzing those documents, commercial

13

information related to Google’s hiring strategies, and techniques used for interviewing and

14

evaluating candidates. See ECF 105, 198, 253, 298, 302.

15

Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion and directs Google, LLC to file a

16

redacted version of the Court’s Order Denying Defendant Google LLC’s Motion to Decertify

17

Class as a separate docket entry on or before August 20, 2018.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21
22
23

Dated: August 14, 2018
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2