Gurminder Singh v. Google, Inc.
Filing
152
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 135 PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 140 GOOGLE'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL by Judge Beth Labson Freeman. (blflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2021)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
SAN JOSE DIVISION
6
7
GURMINDER SINGH,
8
Plaintiff,
v.
9
10
GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Case No. 16-cv-03734-BLF
ORDER REGARDING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
FILE UNDER SEAL
[Re: ECF Nos. 135, 137, 140, 149]
12
13
Before the Court are administrative motions to file under seal filed by both Plaintiff
14
Gurminder Singh (“Plaintiff”), ECF No. 135 (“PMTS”), and Defendant Google LLC (“Google”),
15
ECF No. 140 (“GMTS”). Each Party has filed a declaration in support of the other’s
16
administrative motion. ECF Nos. 137, 149. For the reasons stated below, each of the Parties’
17
administrative motion to file under seal is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
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 and Cnty. 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)). Consequently, filings that are “more than tangentially related to the
23
merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for
24
Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only
25
tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at
26
1097. This standard applies to motions for class certification. See, e.g., Adtrader, Inc. v. Google
27
LLC, 2020 WL 6391210, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2020) (citing cases).
28
“Under the compelling reasons standard, a district court must weigh relevant factors, base
1
2
its decision on a compelling reason, and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying
3
on hypothesis or conjecture.” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010)
4
(internal quotation marks omitted). “In general, compelling reasons sufficient to outweigh the
5
public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such court files might
6
. . . become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of records to gratify private spite,
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Algarin v.
Maybelline, LLC, No. 12CV3000 AJB DHB, 2014 WL 690410, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2014)
(internal quotation marks omitted). “The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a
litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more,
compel the court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Courts have found that a
party has demonstrated compelling reasons warranting sealing where “confidential business
12
material, marketing strategies, product development plans could result in improper use by business
13
14
15
competitors seeking to replicate [the company’s] business practices and circumvent the time and
resources necessary in developing their own practices and strategies.” Algarin, 2014 WL 690410,
at *3.
16
Sealing motions filed in this district also must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of
17
sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civil L.R. 79-5(b).1 Under Civil
18
Local Rule 79-6(d), the submitting party must attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to
19
seal only the sealable material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that
20
is sought to be sealed.” In addition, a party moving to seal a document in whole or in part must
21
file a declaration establishing that the identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A).
22
“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents
23
as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Id.
24
Where the moving party requests sealing of documents because they have been designated
25
26
27
28
1
The discussion of Civil L.R. 79-5 refers to the version of that rule that was in effect at the time
the Parties filed these administrative motions. Civil L.R. 79-5 has since been amended. See Civil
L.R. 79-5 (effective Nov. 1, 2021). Any future motions to seal in this case will be governed by the
new version of the Rule.
2
1
confidential by another party or a non-party under a protective order, the burden of establishing
2
adequate reasons for sealing is placed on the designating party or non-party. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e).
3
The moving party must file a proof of service showing that the designating party or non-party has
4
been given notice of the motion to seal. Id. “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative
5
Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration . . . establishing that all of
6
the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). “If the Designating Party does not file a
7
responsive declaration . . . and the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal is denied, the
8
Submitting Party may file the document in the public record no earlier than 4 days, and no later
9
than 10 days, after the motion is denied.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(2).
10
II.
Plaintiff filed an administrative motion to file under seal parts of its opening brief and 7
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
12
exhibits attached to the brief. See PMTS at 2-5. Google had designated the materials in the brief
13
and exhibits as “Highly Confidential—Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the Parties’ protective order.
14
See id. In accordance with Civil L.R. 79-5, Google filed a declaration in support of sealing some
15
of those materials. ECF No. 137-1 (“GDecl.”). Google says that that its narrowed sealing request
16
is required to prevent public release of its proprietary methods for filtering invalid clicks on
17
Google platforms. Id. ¶¶ 4-8. Google says that some of the other material contains sensitive and
18
confidential revenue data that could jeopardize Google’s competitive standing. Id. ¶ 9.
The Court finds that Google has narrowed Plaintiff’s sealing request to only material for
19
20
which there are compelling reasons for sealing. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s administrative motion to
21
file under seal is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The following documents and
22
portions of documents related to Plaintiff’s motion for class certification SHALL remain under
23
seal:
ECF
24
134
25
26
27
Document
Portions
Reason
Plaintiff’s Motion for
Class Certification
2:14-16,
4:22-28,
5:1-6, 5:1628, 6:1-4,
6:9-12,
6:21, 10:8,
13:15-21
These portions of the Memorandum of
Points and Authorities contain highly
sensitive and detailed technical
information relating to the design,
evaluation, and maintenance of Google’s
invalid click filters. These portions also
reference internal, sensitive revenue data.
Public disclosure of this highly sensitive
28
3
1
ECF
Document
Portions
business information would allow
Google’s competitors unwarranted insight
into Google’s systems and filtering of
invalid activity, thus enabling them to
unfairly compete with Google. The
disclosure of this information would also
compromise Google’s filters, allowing
those who benefit from invalid activity to
evade Google’s invalid click detection
systems, causing irreparable competitive
and reputational harm to Google.
2
3
4
5
6
7
134-4
Tang Decl. Ex. 3
2:13-24,
65:1-25,
73:17-25,
100:10,
100:16-21,
100:24101:25,
134:4135:9.
135:19-25,
137:1-25,
158:1-5,
160:12-16,
160:18-25
These portions of the transcript of the
deposition of Google’s 30(b)(6) witness,
Per Bjorke, contain highly sensitive and
detailed technical information relating to
the design, evaluation, and maintenance
of Google’s invalid click filters, including
the confidential names of those systems.
Public disclosure of this highly sensitive
business information would allow
Google’s competitors unwarranted insight
into Google’s systems and filtering of
invalid activity, thus enabling them to
unfairly compete with Google. The
disclosure of this information would also
compromise Google’s filters, allowing
those who benefit from invalid activity to
evade Google’s invalid click detection
systems, causing irreparable competitive
and reputational harm to Google.
134-5
Tang Decl. Ex. 4
Highlighted
portions of
pages 1 & 2
The highlighted portions of the Letter
contain reference to a highly sensitive
metric used in monitoring invalid clicks
on Google’s platform. Public disclosure
of this highly sensitive business
information would allow Google’s
competitors unwarranted insight into
Google’s systems and filtering of invalid
activity, thus enabling them to unfairly
compete with Google. The disclosure of
this information would also compromise
Google’s filters, allowing those who
benefit from invalid activity to evade
Google’s invalid click detection systems,
causing irreparable competitive and
reputational harm to Google.
134-6
Tang Decl. Ex. 5
Entire
document
The report contains highly sensitive and
detailed technical information relating to
an investigation into invalid click activity
using Google’s proprietary systems and
tools. Public disclosure of this highly
sensitive business information would
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Reason
27
28
4
1
ECF
Document
Portions
allow Google’s competitors unwarranted
insight into Google’s systems and
filtering of invalid activity, thus enabling
them to unfairly compete with Google.
The disclosure of this information would
also compromise Google’s filters,
allowing those who benefit from invalid
activity to evade Google’s invalid click
detection systems, causing irreparable
competitive and reputational harm to
Google.
2
3
4
5
6
7
134-7
Tang Decl. Ex. 6
Entire
document
The presentation contains highly sensitive
and detailed technical information
relating to the design, evaluation, and
maintenance of Google’s invalid click
filters, including the confidential names
of those systems and metrics. Public
disclosure of this highly sensitive
business information would allow
Google’s competitors unwarranted insight
into Google’s systems and filtering of
invalid activity, thus enabling them to
unfairly compete with Google. The
disclosure of this information would also
compromise Google’s filters, allowing
those who benefit from invalid activity to
evade Google’s invalid click detection
systems, causing irreparable competitive
and reputational harm to Google.
134-8
Tang Decl. Ex. 7
Entire
document
The report contains highly sensitive and
detailed technical information relating to
the design, evaluation, and maintenance
of one of Google’s metrics used to
combat invalid activity. Public disclosure
of this highly sensitive business
information would allow Google’s
competitors unwarranted insight into
Google’s systems and filtering of invalid
activity, thus enabling them to unfairly
compete with Google. The disclosure of
this information would also compromise
Google’s filters, allowing those who
benefit from invalid activity to evade
Google’s invalid click detection systems,
causing irreparable competitive and
reputational harm to Google.
134-11
Tang Decl. Ex. 10
Entire
document
The chart contains highly sensitive and
confidential revenue data and customer
data pulled for the purpose of Per
Bjorke’s deposition. This information is
not in the public record. Public disclosure
of this highly sensitive business
8
9
10
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Reason
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
1
ECF
Document
Portions
Reason
information would jeopardize Google’s
competitive standing.
2
3
Plaintiff SHALL file on the public docket Tang Decl. Ex. 8 (ECF No. 134-9), as no Party supports
4
its sealing. Google SHALL file on the public docket the more narrowly redacted copies of ECF
5
Nos. 134 and 134-4 that conform to this order. Google SHALL send highlighted, unredacted
6
courtesy copies of those documents to the Court no later than November 18, 2021.
7
III.
8
GOOGLE’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Google filed an administrative motion to file under seal parts of its opposition brief, two
declarations, and 14 exhibits attached to the brief. See GMTS. Those materials were a mix of
10
material Google sought to seal and material that Plaintiff designated as “Highly Confidential—
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the Parties’ protective order. See id. In accordance with Civil L.R.
12
79-5, Plaintiff filed a declaration in support of sealing a narrowed set of designated materials.
13
ECF No. 149 (“PDecl.”). Google advances the same reasons as supported its narrowed sealing
14
request for materials submitted in connection with Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. See
15
generally GMTS. Plaintiff states that the designated materials contain his marketing and business
16
strategies, budget, and expenses which may result in competitive disadvantage for Plaintiff.
17
PDecl. ¶¶ 4-5.
18
The Court finds that Google has established compelling reasons for sealing the materials it
19
seeks to seal and that Plaintiff has narrowed his designated material such that there are compelling
20
reasons for sealing that material too. Accordingly, Google’s administrative motion to file under
21
seal is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The following documents and portions of
22
documents related to Google’s opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for class certification SHALL
23
remain under seal:
ECF
Document
24
142
25
26
27
28
Google’s Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Motion for
Class Certification
Portions
Reason
4:19-20;
5:4-5; 6:910; 7:258:5; 8:8-19;
8:24-27;
9:2-6; 9:1017; 11:2728; 12:3-4;
These portions of the brief contain highly
sensitive and detailed technical
information relating to the design,
evaluation, and maintenance of Google’s
invalid click filters. These portions also
reference internal, sensitive revenue data.
Public disclosure of this highly sensitive
business information would allow
6
1
ECF
Document
3
4
5
Reason
12:8-12;
12:21-22;
14:6-7;
14:9-12;
15:14-21;
17:17-21;
18:11-13;
18:22-28;
23:25-28
2
Portions
Google’s competitors unwarranted insight
into Google’s systems and filtering of
invalid activity, thus enabling them to
unfairly compete with Google. The
disclosure of this information would also
compromise Google’s filters, allowing
those who benefit from invalid activity to
evade Google’s invalid click detection
systems, causing irreparable competitive
and reputational harm to Google. These
portions also contain detailed figures
regarding Plaintiff’s marketing and
business strategies, budget, and expenses,
and Plaintiff’s testimony regarding such
strategies, budget, and expenses, which
would provide no benefit to the public
interest if publicized through the court
records but may result in harm to
Plaintiff.
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
142-1
Sangal Declaration
142-2
Bjorke Declaration
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
¶¶ 11, 21-23 These portions of the declaration contain
highly sensitive and detailed technical
information relating to the design,
evaluation, and maintenance of Google’s
invalid click filters. These portions also
reference internal, sensitive revenue data.
Public disclosure of this highly sensitive
business information would allow
Google’s competitors unwarranted insight
into Google’s systems and filtering of
invalid activity, thus enabling them to
unfairly compete with Google. The
disclosure of this information would also
compromise Google’s filters, allowing
those who benefit from invalid activity to
evade Google’s invalid click detection
systems, causing irreparable competitive
and reputational harm to Google.
¶¶ 10, 14,
15, 17, 2023, 25-29
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
These portions of the declaration contain
highly sensitive and detailed technical
information relating to the design,
evaluation, and maintenance of Google’s
invalid click filters. These portions also
reference internal, sensitive revenue data.
Public disclosure of this highly sensitive
business information would allow
Google’s competitors unwarranted insight
into Google’s systems and filtering of
invalid activity, thus enabling them to
unfairly compete with Google. The
disclosure of this information would also
compromise Google’s filters, allowing
those who benefit from invalid activity to
evade Google’s invalid click detection
1
ECF
Document
Portions
systems, causing irreparable competitive
and reputational harm to Google.
2
3
142-3
Bjorke Decl. Ex. 1
Entire
document
This exhibit contains highly sensitive and
detailed technical information relating to
the design, evaluation, and maintenance
of Google’s invalid click filters. It also
references internal, sensitive revenue
data. Public disclosure of this highly
sensitive business information would
allow Google’s competitors unwarranted
insight into Google’s systems and
filtering of invalid activity, thus enabling
them to unfairly compete with Google.
The disclosure of this information would
also compromise Google’s filters,
allowing those who benefit from invalid
activity to evade Google’s invalid click
detection systems, causing irreparable
competitive and reputational harm to
Google.
142-4
Bjorke Decl. Ex. 2
Entire
document
This exhibit contains highly sensitive and
detailed technical information relating to
the design, evaluation, and maintenance
of Google’s invalid click filters. It also
references internal, sensitive revenue
data. Public disclosure of this highly
sensitive business information would
allow Google’s competitors unwarranted
insight into Google’s systems and
filtering of invalid activity, thus enabling
them to unfairly compete with Google.
The disclosure of this information would
also compromise Google’s filters,
allowing those who benefit from invalid
activity to evade Google’s invalid click
detection systems, causing irreparable
competitive and reputational harm to
Google.
142-6
Nelson Decl. Ex. A
Entire
document
The document contains detailed figures
regarding Plaintiff’s marketing and
business strategies, budget, and expenses,
and Plaintiff’s testimony regarding such
strategies, budget, and expenses, which
would provide no benefit to the public
interest if publicized through the court
records but may result in harm to
Plaintiff.
142-8
Nelson Decl. Ex. C
Entire
document
The document contains detailed figures
regarding Plaintiff’s marketing and
business strategies, budget, and expenses,
and Plaintiff’s testimony regarding such
strategies, budget, and expenses, which
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Reason
27
28
8
1
ECF
Document
Portions
would provide no benefit to the public
interest if publicized through the court
records but may result in harm to
Plaintiff.
2
3
4
142-14
Nelson Decl. Ex. I
Highlighted
portions
This exhibit contains highly sensitive and
detailed technical information relating to
the design, evaluation, and maintenance
of Google’s invalid click filters. It also
references internal, sensitive revenue
data. Public disclosure of this highly
sensitive business information would
allow Google’s competitors unwarranted
insight into Google’s systems and
filtering of invalid activity, thus enabling
them to unfairly compete with Google.
The disclosure of this information would
also compromise Google’s filters,
allowing those who benefit from invalid
activity to evade Google’s invalid click
detection systems, causing irreparable
competitive and reputational harm to
Google.
142-15
Nelson Decl. Ex. J
Highlighted
portions
This exhibit contains highly sensitive and
detailed technical information relating to
the design, evaluation, and maintenance
of Google’s invalid click filters. It also
references internal, sensitive revenue
data. Public disclosure of this highly
sensitive business information would
allow Google’s competitors unwarranted
insight into Google’s systems and
filtering of invalid activity, thus enabling
them to unfairly compete with Google.
The disclosure of this information would
also compromise Google’s filters,
allowing those who benefit from invalid
activity to evade Google’s invalid click
detection systems, causing irreparable
competitive and reputational harm to
Google.
142-16
Nelson Decl. Ex. K
Entire
document
The document contains detailed figures
regarding Plaintiff’s marketing and
business strategies, budget, and expenses,
and Plaintiff’s testimony regarding such
strategies, budget, and expenses, which
would provide no benefit to the public
interest if publicized through the court
records but may result in harm to
Plaintiff.
142-17
Nelson Decl. Ex. L
Entire
document
The document contains detailed figures
regarding Plaintiff’s marketing and
business strategies, budget, and expenses,
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Reason
28
9
1
ECF
Document
Portions
Reason
and Plaintiff’s testimony regarding such
strategies, budget, and expenses, which
would provide no benefit to the public
interest if publicized through the court
records but may result in harm to
Plaintiff.
2
3
4
142-21
Nelson Decl. Ex. P
Entire
document
The document contains detailed figures
regarding Plaintiff’s marketing and
business strategies, budget, and expenses,
and Plaintiff’s testimony regarding such
strategies, budget, and expenses, which
would provide no benefit to the public
interest if publicized through the court
records but may result in harm to
Plaintiff.
142-22
5
Nelson Decl. Ex. Q
Entire
document
The document contains detailed figures
regarding Plaintiff’s marketing and
business strategies, budget, and expenses,
and Plaintiff’s testimony regarding such
strategies, budget, and expenses, which
would provide no benefit to the public
interest if publicized through the court
records but may result in harm to
Plaintiff.
142-23
Nelson Decl. Ex. R
Entire
document
The document contains detailed figures
regarding Plaintiff’s marketing and
business strategies, budget, and expenses,
and Plaintiff’s testimony regarding such
strategies, budget, and expenses, which
would provide no benefit to the public
interest if publicized through the court
records but may result in harm to
Plaintiff.
142-26
Nelson Decl. Ex. U
56:5-24,
60:5-25,
65:1-25,
94:1-12,
94:15-25,
113:1-25,
163:1-16
This exhibit contains highly sensitive and
detailed technical information relating to
the design, evaluation, and maintenance
of Google’s invalid click filters. It also
references internal, sensitive revenue
data. Public disclosure of this highly
sensitive business information would
allow Google’s competitors unwarranted
insight into Google’s systems and
filtering of invalid activity, thus enabling
them to unfairly compete with Google.
The disclosure of this information would
also compromise Google’s filters,
allowing those who benefit from invalid
activity to evade Google’s invalid click
detection systems, causing irreparable
competitive and reputational harm to
Google.
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
1
Plaintiff SHALL file on the public docket (1) Nelson Decl. Exs. B and T—as no Party supports
2
their sealing— and (2) the more narrowly redacted copy of Google’s opposition to Plaintiff’s
3
motion for class certification that conforms to this order. Plaintiff SHALL send a highlighted,
4
unredacted courtesy copy of Google’s opposition brief to the Court no later than November 18,
5
2021.
6
IV.
7
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Parties’ administrative
8
motions to file under seal are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART in accordance with
9
the rulings in Sections II and III. Each Party SHALL file new versions of the documents and
10
provide courtesy copies as outlined in those sections.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
Dated: November 15, 2021
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
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?