Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02329/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02329-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FREE RANGE CONTENT, INC., ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GOOGLE INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-02329-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

[Re: ECF 140]

Before the Court is an administrative motion to seal (1) Exhibits 3–4, 6, 10–13, 15–46, and 

49–52 to the Declaration of Steve W. Berman in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class 

Certification (“Berman Declaration”); (2) portions of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification; 

and (3) portions of the Declaration of Stephen Kiraly in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class 

Certification (“Kiraly Declaration”). Pls.’ Admin. Mot. to File Documents Under Seal (“Mot.”), 

ECF 140. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is GRANTED IN PART.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 

U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 

motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 

of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 

access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 

Case 5:14-cv-02329-BLF Document 159 Filed 03/14/17 Page 1 of 11
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79.

However, “while protecting the public’s interest in access to the courts, we must remain 

mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm 

their competitive interest.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228–29 (Fed. 

Cir. 2013). Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the 

merits of a case” therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto 

Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need 

for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are 

often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving 

to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 

Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This 

standard requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the 

information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 

1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated 

by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. 

Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). A protective order sealing the documents during 

discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that good cause exists to keep the 

documents sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80, but a blanket protective order that allows 

the parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to 

determine whether each particular document should remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) 

(“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents 

as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”).

In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal 

documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 

79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is 

“sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under 

the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and 

must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the

Case 5:14-cv-02329-BLF Document 159 Filed 03/14/17 Page 2 of 11
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable 

material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be 

sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unredacted version of the document” that indicates “by 

highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the 

redacted version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative 

Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection 

79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

II. DISCUSSION

Although Defendant Google Inc. (“Google”) argues that this motion should be resolved 

under the less stringent good cause standards, see Def.’s Resp. to Pl.’s Admin. Mot. to Seal 

(“Resp.”) 3, ECF 153, the Court disagrees. “Since the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Center for Auto 

Safety v. Chrysler Group, 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016), most district courts to consider the 

question have found that a motion for class certification is ‘more than tangentially related to the 

underlying cause of action’ and therefore merits application of the ‘compelling reasons’ standard.” 

Philips v. Ford Motor Co., No. 14-cv-2989, 2016 WL 7374214, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2016) 

(collecting cases). Accordingly, the Court will resolve the sealing motion at issue under the 

compelling reasons standard. With this standard in mind, the Court rules on the instant motion as 

follows:

ECF 

No.

Document to 

be Sealed

Result Reasoning

140-7 Ex. 3 to Berman 

Declaration

DENIED. Google does not seek to have this exhibit 

filed under seal. Resp. 5.

140-8 Ex. 4 to Berman 

Declaration 

DENIED. Google does not seek to have this exhibit 

filed under seal. Resp. 5.

140-9 Ex. 6 to Berman 

Declaration 

GRANTED. Excerpts from the deposition of James 

Gray that contain information regarding 

policy related to Google’s AdSense 

systems. Loebel-Fried Decl. ISO Resp. 

¶ 9 (“Loebel-Fried Decl.”), ECF 153-1.

Case 5:14-cv-02329-BLF Document 159 Filed 03/14/17 Page 3 of 11
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

141-1 Ex. 10 to 

Berman 

Declaration

GRANTED as to:

3:1–5, 10–15, 22–25;

DENIED as to the 

remainder.

Excerpts from the deposition of James 

Gray that contain information regarding 

policy related to Google’s AdSense 

systems. Loebel-Fried Decl. ¶ 9.

141-2 Ex. 11 to 

Berman 

Declaration

GRANTED. Consists entirely of internal Google data 

related to its AdSense programs and 

systems, sensitive publisher financial 

data, or internal Google policy and 

program design descriptions and 

discussions. Loebel-Fried Decl. ¶ 7.

141-3 Ex. 12 to 

Berman 

Declaration

GRANTED. Internal e-mails that contain 

conversations between Google 

employees discussing strategy, policy, 

and practices related to AdSense. 

Contain non-public, confidential, 

proprietary information, as well as 

personal identifying information and 

contact information of certain Google 

employees. Loebel-Fried Decl. ¶ 8.

141-4 Ex. 13 to 

Berman 

Declaration

GRANTED. Consists entirely of internal Google data 

related to its AdSense programs and 

systems, sensitive publisher financial 

data, or internal Google policy and 

program design descriptions and 

discussions. Loebel-Fried Decl. ¶ 7.

141-5 Ex. 15 to 

Berman 

Declaration

GRANTED. Consists entirely of internal Google data 

related to its AdSense programs and 

systems, sensitive publisher financial 

data, or internal Google policy and 

program design descriptions and 

discussions. Loebel-Fried Decl. ¶ 7.

141-6 Ex. 16 to 

Berman 

Declaration

GRANTED. Consists entirely of internal Google data 

related to its AdSense programs and 

systems, sensitive publisher financial 

data, or internal Google policy and 

program design descriptions and 

discussions. Loebel-Fried Decl. ¶ 7.

141-7 Ex. 17 to 

Berman 

Declaration

GRANTED. Consists entirely of internal Google data 

related to its AdSense programs and 

systems, sensitive publisher financial 

data, or internal Google policy and 

program design descriptions and 

discussions. Loebel-Fried Decl. ¶ 7.

Case 5:14-cv-02329-BLF Document 159 Filed 03/14/17 Page 4 of 11
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

141-8 Ex. 18 to 

Berman 

Declaration

GRANTED as to 

portions highlighted in 

ECF 154-5 (Portions of 

pages GOOGFRNG00005928—

GOOGFRNG00005252). DENIED as 

to the remainder.

E-mail conversations between Google 

personnel and certain named plaintiffs 

that contain personal identification 

information and contact information of 

certain Google personnel. Loebel-Fried 

Decl. ¶ 11.

141-9 Ex. 19 to 

Berman 

Declaration

GRANTED. Internal e-mails that contain 

conversations between Google 

employees discussing strategy, policy, 

and practices related to AdSense. 

Contain non-public, confidential, 

proprietary information, as well as 

personal identifying information and 

contact information of certain Google 

employees. Loebel-Fried Decl. ¶ 8.

141-10 Ex. 20 to 

Berman 

Declaration

GRANTED as to 

portions highlighted in 

ECF 154-7 (Portions of 

page GOOGFRNG00005224). DENIED as 

to the remainder.

E-mail conversations between Google 

personnel and certain named plaintiffs 

that contain personal identification 

information and contact information of 

certain Google personnel. Loebel-Fried 

Decl. ¶ 11.

141-11 Ex. 21 to 

Berman 

Declaration

GRANTED as to 

portions highlighted in 

154-9 (Portions of pages 

GOOGFRNG00005248 –

GOOGFRNG00005252). DENIED as 

to the remainder.

E-mail conversations between Google 

personnel and certain named plaintiffs 

that contain personal identification 

information and contact information of 

certain Google personnel. Loebel-Fried 

Decl. ¶ 11.

141-12 Ex. 22 to 

Berman 

Declaration

GRANTED as to:

3:14–17, 23–25;

4:1–3, 21–25;

DENIED as to the 

remainder.

Excerpts from the deposition of Zachary 

Loebel-Fried that contain confidential 

information regarding Google’s invalid 

activity detection processes and spam 

termination policy. Loebel-Fried Decl. 

¶ 15.

141-13 Ex. 23 to 

Berman

Declaration

GRANTED. Consists entirely of internal Google data 

related to its AdSense programs and 

systems, sensitive publisher financial 

data, or internal Google policy and 

program design descriptions and 

discussions. Loebel-Fried Decl. ¶ 7.

Case 5:14-cv-02329-BLF Document 159 Filed 03/14/17 Page 5 of 11
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

141-14 Ex. 24 to 

Berman 

Declaration

GRANTED as to:

3:3–4, 7–9, 13–15, 18–

25;

4:1–18;

DENIED as to the 

remainder.

Excerpts from the deposition of James 

Gray that contain information regarding 

policy related to Google’s AdSense 

systems. Loebel-Fried Decl. ¶ 9.

141-15 Ex. 25 to 

Berman 

Declaration

GRANTED. Consists entirely of internal Google data 

related to its AdSense programs and 

systems, sensitive publisher financial 

data, or internal Google policy and 

program design descriptions and 

discussions. Loebel-Fried Decl. ¶ 7.

142-1 Ex. 26 to 

Berman 

Declaration

GRANTED as to:

3:11–25;

DENIED as to the 

remainder.

Excerpts from the deposition of Zachary 

Loebel-Fried that contain confidential 

information regarding Google’s invalid 

activity detection processes and spam 

termination policy. Loebel-Fried Decl. 

¶ 15.

142-2 Ex. 27 to 

Berman 

Declaration

GRANTED. Consists entirely of internal Google data 

related to its AdSense programs and 

systems, sensitive publisher financial 

data, or internal Google policy and 

program design descriptions and 

discussions. Loebel-Fried Decl. ¶ 7.

142-3 Ex. 28 to 

Berman 

Declaration

GRANTED as to:

3:7–23;

DENIED as to the 

remainder.

Excerpts from the deposition of Ray Liu 

that contain confidential information 

regarding Google’s AdSense publisher 

quality and termination policy and 

practices. Loebel-Fried Decl. ¶ 13.

142-4 Ex. 29 to 

Berman 

Declaration

GRANTED. Consists entirely of internal Google data 

related to its AdSense programs and 

systems, sensitive publisher financial 

data, or internal Google policy and 

program design descriptions and 

discussions. Loebel-Fried Decl. ¶ 7.

142-5 Ex. 30 to 

Berman 

Declaration

GRANTED. Consists entirely of internal Google data 

related to its AdSense programs and 

systems, sensitive publisher financial 

data, or internal Google policy and 

program design descriptions and 

discussions. Loebel-Fried Decl. ¶ 7.

Case 5:14-cv-02329-BLF Document 159 Filed 03/14/17 Page 6 of 11
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

142-6 Ex. 31 to 

Berman 

Declaration

GRANTED. Internal e-mails that contain 

conversations between Google 

employees discussing strategy, policy, 

and practices related to AdSense. 

Contain non-public, confidential, 

proprietary information, as well as 

personal identifying information and 

contact information of certain Google 

employees. Loebel-Fried Decl. ¶ 8.

142-7 Ex. 32 to 

Berman 

Declaration

GRANTED as to:

3:6–12, 18–24;

DENIED as to the 

remainder.

Excerpts from the deposition of Zachary 

Loebel-Fried that contain confidential 

information regarding Google’s invalid 

activity detection processes and spam 

termination policy. Loebel-Fried Decl. 

¶ 15.

142-8 Ex. 33 to 

Berman 

Declaration

GRANTED. Consists entirely of internal Google data 

related to its AdSense programs and 

systems, sensitive publisher financial 

data, or internal Google policy and 

program design descriptions and 

discussions. Loebel-Fried Decl. ¶ 7.

142-9 Ex. 34 to 

Berman 

Declaration

GRANTED as to:

3:8–13, 20–25;

4:1–19;

DENIED as to the 

remainder.

Excerpts from the deposition of James 

Gray that contain information regarding 

policy related to Google’s AdSense 

systems. Loebel-Fried Decl. ¶ 9.

142-10 Ex. 35 to 

Berman 

Declaration

GRANTED. Consists entirely of internal Google data 

related to its AdSense programs and 

systems, sensitive publisher financial 

data, or internal Google policy and 

program design descriptions and 

discussions. Loebel-Fried Decl. ¶ 7.

142-11 Ex. 36 to 

Berman

Declaration

GRANTED. Internal e-mails that contain 

conversations between Google 

employees discussing strategy, policy, 

and practices related to AdSense. 

Contain non-public, confidential, 

proprietary information, as well as 

personal identifying information and 

contact information of certain Google 

employees. Loebel-Fried Decl. ¶ 8.

Case 5:14-cv-02329-BLF Document 159 Filed 03/14/17 Page 7 of 11
8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

142-12 Ex. 37 to 

Berman 

Declaration

GRANTED. Consists entirely of internal Google data 

related to its AdSense programs and 

systems, sensitive publisher financial 

data, or internal Google policy and 

program design descriptions and 

discussions. Loebel-Fried Decl. ¶ 7.

142-13 Ex. 38 to 

Berman 

Declaration

GRANTED as to:

3:8–25;

4:1–25;

5:1–16;

DENIED as to the 

remainder.

Excerpts from the deposition of James 

Gray that contain information regarding 

policy related to Google’s AdSense 

systems. Loebel-Fried Decl. ¶ 9

142-14 Ex. 39 to 

Berman 

Declaration

GRANTED. Internal e-mails that contain 

conversations between Google 

employees discussing strategy, policy, 

and practices related to AdSense. 

Contain non-public, confidential, 

proprietary information, as well as 

personal identifying information and 

contact information of certain Google 

employees. Loebel-Fried Decl. ¶ 8.

142-15 Ex. 40 to 

Berman 

Declaration

GRANTED. Consists entirely of internal Google data 

related to its AdSense programs and 

systems, sensitive publisher financial 

data, or internal Google policy and 

program design descriptions and 

discussions. Loebel-Fried Decl. ¶ 7.

142-16 Ex. 41 to 

Berman 

Declaration

GRANTED as to:

3:4–24;

DENIED as to the 

remainder.

Excerpts from the deposition of Ray Liu 

that contain confidential information 

regarding Google’s AdSense publisher 

quality and termination policy and 

practices. Loebel-Fried Decl. ¶ 13.

142-17 Ex. 42 to 

Berman 

Declaration

GRANTED as to:

9:7–10;

DENIED as to the 

remainder.

Google’s Objections and Responses, and 

Supplemental Objections and Responses, 

to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories 

that contain confidential information 

related to Google’s AdSense publisher 

termination policy and practices. 

Loebel-Fried Decl. ¶ 17.

Case 5:14-cv-02329-BLF Document 159 Filed 03/14/17 Page 8 of 11
9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

142-18 Ex. 43 to 

Berman 

Declaration

GRANTED as to:

6:2–9;

7:16–28;

8:2–9;

9:2–8;

DENIED as to the 

remainder.

Google’s Objections and Responses, and 

Supplemental Objections and Responses, 

to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories 

that contain confidential information 

related to Google’s AdSense publisher 

termination policy and practices. 

Loebel-Fried Decl. ¶ 17.

142-19 Ex. 44 to 

Berman 

Declaration

GRANTED. Consists entirely of internal Google data 

related to its AdSense programs and 

systems, sensitive publisher financial 

data, or internal Google policy and 

program design descriptions and 

discussions. Loebel-Fried Decl. ¶ 7.

142-20 Ex. 45 to 

Berman 

Declaration

GRANTED. Consists entirely of internal Google data 

related to its AdSense programs and 

systems, sensitive publisher financial 

data, or internal Google policy and 

program design descriptions and 

discussions. Loebel-Fried Decl. ¶ 7.

142-21 Ex. 46 to 

Berman 

Declaration

GRANTED as to:

3:18–25;

DENIED as to the 

remainder.

Excerpts from the deposition of Zachary 

Loebel-Fried that contain confidential 

information regarding Google’s invalid 

activity detection processes and spam 

termination policy. Loebel-Fried Decl. 

¶ 15.

142-22 Ex. 49 to 

Berman 

Declaration

GRANTED. Consists entirely of internal Google data 

related to its AdSense programs and 

systems, sensitive publisher financial 

data, or internal Google policy and 

program design descriptions and 

discussions. Loebel-Fried Decl. ¶ 7.

142-23 Ex. 50 to 

Berman 

Declaration

GRANTED. Consists entirely of internal Google data 

related to its AdSense programs and 

systems, sensitive publisher financial 

data, or internal Google policy and 

program design descriptions and 

discussions. Loebel-Fried Decl. ¶ 7.

142-24 Ex. 51 to 

Berman 

Declaration

GRANTED. Consists entirely of internal Google data 

related to its AdSense programs and 

systems, sensitive publisher financial 

data, or internal Google policy and 

program design descriptions and 

discussions. Loebel-Fried Decl. ¶ 7.

Case 5:14-cv-02329-BLF Document 159 Filed 03/14/17 Page 9 of 11
10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

142-25 Ex. 52 to 

Berman 

Declaration

GRANTED. Internal e-mails that contain 

conversations between Google 

employees discussing strategy, policy, 

and practices related to AdSense. 

Contain non-public, confidential, 

proprietary information, as well as 

personal identifying information and 

contact information of certain Google 

employees. Loebel-Fried Decl. ¶ 8.

140-4 Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for 

Class 

Certification

GRANTED as to:

table of contents iii, 

heading II.J;

4:26–27;

5:1, 18–19;

6:1–2, 10–12, 16;

7:4–5, 16, 23–24;

8:3–11, 14, 26–28;

9:1–6, 8–9, 12–14, 15–

17, 19–21, 23–27;

10:2–6, 12, 14, 16–23, 

27;

11:1–3;

17:25–27;

18:1;

19:6–8, 14–16;

22:22–23, 28;

23:1–4

(as highlighted in 140-4)

DENIED as to the 

remainder. 

The identified portions contain 

confidential, valuable information related 

to the practices and policies Google uses 

to ensure the health and integrity of its 

AdSense systems and Google’s 

processes related to advertiser payment 

and publisher payment information. 

Loebel-Fried Decl. ¶¶ 2–3.

140-6 Kiraly 

Declaration

GRANTED as to:

2:17–19;

3:2–3, 5–6, 13, 15–20, 

22;

4:1–2, 4–8, 11–14, 16;

(as highlighted in 140-6)

DENIED as to the 

remainder. 

Contains non-public confidential, 

proprietary Google business information 

that would cause harm to Google were it 

publicly disclosed. Loebel-Fried Decl. 

¶¶ 5–6.

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motion at ECF 140 is GRANTED IN PART 

and DENIED IN PART. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(2), for any request that has been denied 

Case 5:14-cv-02329-BLF Document 159 Filed 03/14/17 Page 10 of 11
11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

because the party designating a document as confidential or subject to a protective order has not 

provided sufficient reasons to seal, the submitting party must file the unredacted (or lesser 

redacted) documents into the public record no earlier than 4 days and no later than 10 days from 

the filing of this order. To simplify the docket, the Court requests that Plaintiffs refile the public 

version, i.e., redacted version, of their motion for class certification and the related declarations 

and exhibits to replace the currently filed public versions thereof.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 14, 2017

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-02329-BLF Document 159 Filed 03/14/17 Page 11 of 11