Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02329/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02329-9/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 RE PLAINTIFFS’

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL

[Re: ECF 198]

Before the Court is an administrative motion to seal in their entirety or redact certain 

documents designated as “Confidential” by Defendant Google Inc. (“Google”) filed with 

Plaintiffs’ reply in support of their motion for class certification (“Reply”). Pl.’s Admin. Mot. to 

File Documents Under Seal (“Mot.”), ECF 198. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is 

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED 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 

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 

Case 5:14-cv-02329-BLF Document 208 Filed 06/12/17 Page 1 of 5
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

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 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), 

Case 5:14-cv-02329-BLF Document 208 Filed 06/12/17 Page 2 of 5
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

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 Google argues that this motion should be resolved under the less stringent good 

cause standards, see Resp. to Mot. 3 n.1, ECF 205, the Court disagrees. As the Court noted in its 

prior orders, “[s]ince the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group,

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 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

198-15 Plaintiffs’ 

Reply in 

Support of 

Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for 

Class 

Certification

GRANTED as to:

4:6–8, 10–14, 16, 18;

7:10–11;

8:14;

10:11–15;

12:25;

13:7, 13–15;

15:17.

Includes information related to processes 

and policies that Google uses to detect 

and prevent invalid activity, and to 

terminate non-compliant publishers in 

order to ensure the integrity and security 

of its AdSense systems. Li Decl. ¶ 2, 

ECF 205-1. The data and policies 

referenced contain valuable information 

related to the practices, processes, and 

policies Google uses to ensure system 

health and integrity, and public disclosure 

would cause competitive harm to Google. 

Id. Also contains information about 

Google’s processes related to advertiser 

payment and publisher payment 

information, public disclosure of which 

could cause competitive harm to Google. 

Id. ¶ 3. 

Case 5:14-cv-02329-BLF Document 208 Filed 06/12/17 Page 3 of 5
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

ECF 

No.

Document to 

be Sealed

Result Reasoning

198-3 Ex. 1 to 

Berman Decl.

GRANTED. Contains internal Google information 

related to administration of its AdSense 

programs and systems, sensitive publisher 

financial data, or internal Google policy 

and program design descriptions, public 

disclosure of which could cause 

competitive harm to Google. Li Decl. ¶ 5. 

198-4 Ex. 2 to 

Berman Decl. 

GRANTED. Internal e-mails that contain conversations 

between Google employees discussing 

strategy, policy, and practices related to 

AdSense. Li Decl. ¶ 6. Public disclosure 

of this information could cause 

competitive harm to Google. Id.

198-6 Ex. 3 to 

Berman Decl. 

GRANTED as to:

3:2, 4–13, 15–25.

Excerpt from the deposition of Zachary 

Loebel-Fried that contains information 

regarding Google’s invalid activity 

detection processes and spam termination 

policy. Li Decl. ¶ 7. Public disclosure of 

this information could cause competitive 

harm to Google. Id.

198-7 Ex. 4 to 

Berman Decl. 

DENIED. Defendants, as the designating party, do 

not seek to seal this document. Li Decl. ¶ 

10. 

198-8 Ex. 5 to 

Berman Decl.

DENIED. Defendants, as the designating party, do 

not seek to seal this document. Li Decl. ¶ 

10. 

198-9 Ex. 6 to 

Berman Decl.

DENIED. Defendants, as the designating party, do 

not seek to seal this document. Li Decl. ¶ 

10. 

198-10 Ex. 7 to 

Berman Decl.

GRANTED. Contains internal Google information 

related to administration of its AdSense 

programs and systems, sensitive publisher 

financial data, or internal Google policy 

and program design descriptions, public 

disclosure of which would cause 

competitive harm to Google. Li Decl. ¶ 5. 

198-11 Ex. 8 to 

Berman Decl.

GRANTED. Internal e-mails that contain conversations 

between Google employees discussing 

strategy, policy, and practices related to 

AdSense. Li Decl. ¶ 6. Public disclosure 

of this information would cause 

competitive harm to Google. Id.

198-12 Ex. 9 to 

Berman Decl.

GRANTED. Contains internal Google information 

related to administration of its AdSense 

programs and systems, sensitive publisher 

financial data, or internal Google policy 

Case 5:14-cv-02329-BLF Document 208 Filed 06/12/17 Page 4 of 5
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

ECF 

No.

Document to 

be Sealed

Result Reasoning

and program design descriptions, public 

disclosure of which would cause 

competitive harm to Google. Li Decl. ¶ 5. 

198-13 Ex. 10 to 

Berman Decl.

GRANTED. Internal Google help page that contains 

information regarding Google’s invalid 

activity detection process and spam 

termination policy, and public disclosure 

of this information could cause 

competitive harm to Google. Li Decl. ¶ 9.

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motion at ECF 198 is GRANTED IN PART and 

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

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 reply to the motion for class certification and the related 

declarations and exhibits to replace the currently filed public versions thereof.

Dated: June 12, 2017

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-02329-BLF Document 208 Filed 06/12/17 Page 5 of 5