In re Google RTB Consumer Privacy Litigation ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 IN RE GOOGLE RTB CONSUMER Case No.21-cv-02155-YGR (VKD) PRIVACY LITIGATION 8 ORDER GRANTING 9 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL 10 Re: Dkt. No. 573 11 12 13 Defendant Google LLC (“Google”) has filed an administrative motion to seal portions of 14 an interrogatory response it included, at the Court’s direction, as an exhibit to a supplemental 15 submission regarding a discovery dispute. See Dkt. Nos. 566, 572, 573. Plaintiffs have not 16 responded to Google’s motion. 17 There is a strong presumption in favor of access by the public to judicial records and 18 documents accompanying dispositive motions that can be overcome only by a showing of 19 “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 20 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (cleaned up). However, the presumption does 21 not apply equally to a motion addressing matters that are only “tangentially related to the merits of 22 a case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). A 23 party seeking to seal documents or information in connection with such a motion must meet the 24 lower “good cause” standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Id. at 1098-99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 25 1179-80. The discovery hearing at issue here does not address the merits of either party’s claims 26 or defenses, so the Court applies the “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). 27 Google argues that good cause exists here because the portions of the interrogatory 1 internal systems and advertising infrastructure, including systems design and capabilities” and 2 “highly sensitive, confidential, and proprietary technical names of internal data logs.” Dkt. No. 3 573 at 2-3. It claims that the release of this information would cause the company “significant 4 || competitive harm” and “create[] a risk of cyber security threats.” Jd. Google also argues that its 5 “proposed redactions are consistent with the type of information” the Court has sealed in the past 6 || inthis case. Id. at 3. 7 The Court agrees that good cause exists to seal the portions of Google’s June 8, 2023 8 supplemental interrogatory responses identified at Dkt. No. 573-2. The redactions Google 9 || proposes are minimal and narrowly tailored to protect from the potential harm that it alleges. See 10 Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(3); Dkt. No. 573-2 at 4-6, 8; see also, e.g., Dkt. No. 540 (sealing information 11 about internal systems which would be valuable to competitors); Dkt. No. 577 (sealing names of a 12 internal identifiers and logs). In these circumstances the Court concludes that Google has 13 demonstrated good cause to seal the following material and the Court orders that it be sealed: 2 15 Google’s Supplemental Objections Portion(s) highlighted at Dkt. No. 16 and Responses to Plaintiffs’ Fourth 573-2, page 4-5 = Set of Interrogatories, No. 13 17 Google’s Supplemental Objections Portion(s) highlighted at Dkt. No. S 18 and Responses to Plaintiffs’ Fourth 573-2, page 6 Set of Interrogatories, No. 14 19 Google’s Supplemental Objections Portion(s) highlighted at Dkt. No. 20 and Responses to Plaintiffs’ Fourth 573-2, page 8 Set of Interrogatories, No. 15 21 22 A redacted version of this document is already available on the public docket. See Dkt. 23 || No. 572-4. Accordingly, no further action is required from the parties. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: September 11, 2023 26 . 28 27 28 VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI United States Magistrate Judge