Opinion
21-cv-02155-YGR (VKD)
07-11-2024
IN RE GOOGLE RTB CONSUMER PRIVACY LITIGATION
SEALING ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTES
RE: DKT. NOS. 651, 659, 669
Virginia K. DeMarchi, United States Magistrate Judge
Defendant Google LLC (“Google”) has filed several administrative motions to seal portions of joint discovery dispute letters and accompanying exhibits. Dkt. Nos. 651, 659, 669. Plaintiffs do not oppose these motions.
There is a strong presumption in favor of access by the public to judicial records and documents accompanying dispositive motions that can be overcome only by a showing of “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (cleaned up). However, the presumption does not apply equally to a motion addressing matters that are only “tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). A party seeking to seal documents or information in connection with such a motion must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). Id. at 1098-99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80. The discovery matters at issue here do not address the merits of either party's claims or defenses, so the Court applies the “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c).
Google argues that good cause exists here because “the cited portions of these documents contain highly sensitive, confidential, and proprietary information ....” Dkt. No. 651 at 2; see also Dkt. No. 669 at 4. For many of the cited portions, Google explains that the information is “related to (1) Google's business strategy, analysis, and revenue data regarding Google Real-time Bidding (“Google RTB”), and (2) technical details and discussions concerning Google's internal infrastructure names, data logs, and data systems associated with Google RTB, as well as their proprietary functionalities and metrics.” Dkt. No. 669 at 4. Google asserts that exposure of this information “would cause irreparable harm to Google by providing competitors and business partners with insight into Google's strategic business decisions and policies and priorities” as well as “create a risk of cybersecurity threats.” Id.
The Court agrees that good cause exists to seal the designated portions of these documents. The redactions Google proposes to make to the public versions of these documents are minimal and narrowly tailored to address the concerns it identifies. See Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(3). In these circumstances, the Court concludes that Google has demonstrated good cause to seal the following material and the Court orders that it be sealed:
| Document | Portions to be Filed Under Seal |
| Joint Letter Brief Regarding the Errata to Deposition Transcript of Dr. Glenn Berntson and Google | Portions highlighted at pages 1-6 |
| Ex. B (Excerpt from the Deposition Transcript of Dr. Glenn Berntson and Google) to the Joint Letter Brief | Portions highlighted at 210:8-10, 210:13, 210:25, 211:7, 211:18-19, 211:25, 212:6, 212:8, 212:10, 212:13, 212:22 |
| Ex. C (December 11, 2023 Errata to the October 30, 2023 Deposition of Google 30(b)(6) witness Glenn Berntson) to the Joint Letter Brief | Portions highlighted at page 1 |
| Joint Letter Brief Regarding RFP Nos. 125-127 and 130-133 | Portions highlighted at pages 1-7 |
| Ex. A to the Joint Letter Brief Regarding RFP Nos. 125-127 and 130-133 | Portions highlighted at page 4 |
| Ex. B to the Joint Letter Brief Regarding RFP Nos. 125-127 and 130-133 | Portions highlighted at pages 9, 12-13 |
| Joint Letter Brief Regarding Interrogatory No. 22 and RFP Nos. 128-129 | Portions highlighted at pages 1-6 |
| Ex. B to the Joint Letter Brief Regarding Interrogatory No. 22 and RFP Nos. 128-129 | Portions highlighted at page 4 |
| Ex. D to the Joint Letter Brief Regarding Interrogatory No. 22 and RFP Nos. 128-129 | Portions highlighted at pages 9- 10 |
| Joint Letter Brief Regarding Interrogatory No. 23 | Portions highlighted at pages 1-6 |
| Joint Letter Brief Regarding RFP No. 141 | Portions highlighted at pages 3, 6 |
Redacted versions of these documents are already available on the public docket. See Dkt. Nos. 652, 652-2, 652-3, 660, 670-2 (corrected), 670-3 (corrected), 661, 661-2, 661-4, 662, 663. Accordingly, no further action is required from the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.