Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01824/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01824-34/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:621 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

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

ROBERT HEATH, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GOOGLE LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-01824-BLF 

OMNIBUS ORDER GRANTING IN 

PART AND DENYING IN PART 

UNOPPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTIONS TO SEAL WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

[Re: ECF 350, 353, 359]

Before the Court are several unopposed administrative motions to file under seal portions 

of Defendant’s summary judgment motion, Defendant’s motion for leave to seek reconsideration, 

and Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendant’s motion for leave to seek reconsideration, respectively. 

ECF 350, 353, 359. For the reasons stated below, the motions at ECF 353 and 359 are 

GRANTED, and the motion at ECF 350 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART 

without prejudice.

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 5:15-cv-01824-BLF Document 377 Filed 09/20/18 Page 1 of 7
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) requiresthe 

Case 5:15-cv-01824-BLF Document 377 Filed 09/20/18 Page 2 of 7
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

The Court has reviewed Defendant’s and Plaintiffs’ sealing motions and the declarations of 

the designating parties submitted in support. The Court finds that the parties have articulated 

compelling reasons to seal certain portions of the submitted documents. The Court’s rulings on 

the sealing requests are set forth in the tables below.

A. ECF 350

ECF 

No.

Document to be 

Sealed:

Result Reasoning

350-3

(352)

Portions of Google’s 

Motion for Summary 

Judgment

GRANTED as 

to redacted 

portions.

References sealable material in below 

exhibits.

Because the redacted portions of the 

document may be sealed, no further action is 

required.

350-5

(352-1)

Portions of 

Declaration of Brian 

D. Berry In Support of 

Google’s Motion to 

for Summary 

Judgment (“Berry 

Decl.”)

GRANTED as 

to redacted 

portions.

Page 6, line 3 contains highly confidential 

and sensitive information relating to 

Google’s strategies and techniques for 

interviewing candidates, the release of which 

could harm Google. Mot. at 2; Ong. Decl. ¶¶ 

4, 12–13, ECF 375; see ECF 105; ECF 198; 

ECF 253; ECF 298.

In the remainder, Google seeks to redact the 

names of certain opt-in plaintiffs, which 

Plaintiffs have designated confidential. Ong. 

Decl. ¶ 10. Though Plaintiffs did not file the 

required declaration in support of sealing, the 

Court finds compelling reasons to seal these 

names, as it has in prior orders. See ECF 

256, 298, 323, 325, 333.

Because Google has filed a redacted version 

of this document on the docket, no further 

action is required.

Case 5:15-cv-01824-BLF Document 377 Filed 09/20/18 Page 3 of 7
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

350-7 

through 

350-21

(352-3

and 

352-4)

Berry Decl. Ex. 2 

(Declaration of Brian 

Ong in Support of 

Google, LLC’s 

Motion to Decertify 

Collective Action, 

signed on April 30, 

2018 and Exhibits 

thereto)

GRANTED as 

to entire 

documents.

The Class Certification Ong Declaration 

contains detailed information about the 

stages in Google’s hiring process, a 

description of how gHire is used to record 

and display information about candidates, 

information about the criteria Google uses to 

evaluate candidates for SWE, SRE, and 

SysEng positions, a description of certain 

revisions Google has made to its interview 

feedback system, a description of how Hiring 

Committees operate, and excerpts from 

gHire dossiers. Ong. Decl. ¶¶ 4–5. This 

document was previously filed under seal 

pursuant to Court order. ECF 253.

The exhibits to the Class Certification Ong 

Declaration also contain competitively 

sensitive information from Google’s gHire 

system, access to which is limited to 

authorized Google employees. The Court 

finds that there are compelling reasons to 

seal the entire gHire dossiers because they 

contain competitively sensitive information, 

and disclosure of the dossiers could 

compromise the objectivity of interviewers’ 

assessments. Ong. Decl. ¶¶ 4–5. These 

documents were previously filed under seal 

pursuant to Court order. ECF 253.

Because the entirety of the documents may 

be sealed, no further action is required.

351

(352-5)

Berry Decl. Ex. 3 

(Excerpts from 

deposition of Google’s 

Rule 30(b)(6) witness)

GRANTED as 

to entire 

document.

The document contains detailed 

commercially sensitive information about the 

stages in Google’s hiring process, 

descriptions of how gHire is used to record 

and display information about candidates, 

information about the criteria Google uses to 

evaluate candidates, and revisions to 

Google’s interview feedback system. Ong. 

Decl. ¶ 6. Significant portions of this 

document were previously filed under seal 

pursuant to Court order. ECF 253.

Because the entirety of the document may be 

sealed, no further action is required.

Case 5:15-cv-01824-BLF Document 377 Filed 09/20/18 Page 4 of 7
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

351-1 

through 

351-4

(352-6 

though 

352-9)

Berry Decl. Exs. 4–7 

(expert reports and 

gHire dossiers and 

records)

GRANTED as 

to entire 

documents. 

These exhibits contain sensitive records 

pertaining to candidates for positions at 

Google, and further reflect Google’s 

competitively sensitive commercial 

information related to its strategies and 

techniques for interviewing and evaluating 

candidates for SWE, SRE, and SysEng 

positions. Ong. Decl. ¶¶ 7, 8. This Court 

has previously ordered that the same or 

substantially similar materials are sealable 

because they disclose confidential 

information about Google’s hiring process. 

See ECF 105, 253, 298. In particular, the 

Court has consistently sealed Google’s gHire 

records including gHire committee notes. 

ECF 105.

Because the entirety of the documents may 

be sealed, no further action is required.

351-6 

and 

351-7

(352-11 

and 

352-12)

Berry Decl. Exs. 9-10 

(gHire records 

including internal 

interviewer and Hiring 

Committee notes and 

evaluations related to 

candidates)

GRANTED as 

to entire 

documents.

These exhibits contain sensitive records 

pertaining to candidates for positions at 

Google, including gHire data, and further 

reflect Google’s competitively sensitive 

commercial information related to its 

strategies and techniques for interviewing 

and evaluating candidates for SWE, SRE, 

and SysEng positions. Ong. Decl. ¶ 7. This 

Court has previously ordered that the same or 

substantially similar materials are sealable 

because they disclose confidential 

information about Google’s hiring process. 

See ECF 105, 253, 298. 

The documents also contain putative date of 

birth information that Plaintiffs have 

produced as confidential. The Court finds 

that compelling reasons exist to protect an 

individual’s privacy interest and to prevent 

exposure to or harm or identity theft. This 

Court has previously sealed the same or 

similar information. See ECF 152; ECF 197, 

ECF 256.

Because the entirety of the documents may 

be sealed, no further action is required.

Case 5:15-cv-01824-BLF Document 377 Filed 09/20/18 Page 5 of 7
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

351-8 

through 

351-25

(352-13 

through 

352-43)

Berry Decl., Exs. 11–

41 (excerpts and 

exhibits from the 

depositions of the OptIn Plaintiffs)

GRANTED as 

to the names 

of opt-in 

plaintiffs.

DENIED as to 

the remainder.

Google seeks to redact the names of certain 

opt-in plaintiffs, which Plaintiffs have 

designated confidential. Ong. Decl. ¶ 10. 

Though Plaintiffs did not file the required 

declaration in support of sealing, the Court 

finds compelling reasons to seal these names, 

as it has in prior orders. See ECF 256, 298, 

323, 325, 333.

The remainder is denied because Plaintiffs, 

the designating party, have not filed a 

declaration in support of the sealing. Civ. 

L.R. 79-5(e).

Google is ORDERED to file versions of 

these documents in the public record with the 

names of the opt-in plaintiffs redacted no 

earlier than 4 days and no later than 10 days 

from the date of this order.

B. ECF 353

ECF 

No.

Document to be 

Sealed:

Result Reasoning

353-3

(355)

Portions of Motion for 

Leave to file Motion 

for Reconsideration of 

Order Denying Motion 

for Decertification

GRANTED as 

to redacted 

portions.

References sealable material in below 

exhibits.

Because the redacted portions of the 

document may be sealed, no further action is 

required.

353-4 

through 

353-7

(355-2 

through 

355-5)

Berry Decl. Exs. 1–4 

(the Parties’ expert 

reports)

GRANTED as 

to entire 

documents.

These exhibits contain sensitive records 

pertaining to candidates for positions at 

Google, and further reflect Google’s 

competitively sensitive commercial 

information related to its strategies and 

techniques for interviewing and evaluating 

candidates for SWE, SRE, and SysEng 

positions. Ong. Decl. ¶¶ 3–4, ECF 376. This 

Court has previously ordered that the same or 

substantially similar materials are sealable 

because they disclose confidential 

information about Google’s hiring process. 

See ECF 105, 253, 298. In particular, the 

Court has consistently sealed Google’s gHire 

records including gHire committee notes. 

ECF 105.

Because the entirety of the documents may 

be sealed, no further action is required.

Case 5:15-cv-01824-BLF Document 377 Filed 09/20/18 Page 6 of 7
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

C. ECF 359

ECF 

No.

Document to be 

Sealed:

Result Reasoning

359 Portions of Plaintiffs’ 

Response in 

Opposition to 

Defendant Google 

LLC’s Motion for 

Leave for 

Reconsideration of 

Order Denying Motion 

for Decertification

GRANTED as 

to redacted 

portions.

The Court finds compelling reasons to seal 

the redacted portions because they quote, 

summarize, or cite the expert reports that this 

Court has deemed sealable in this Order. See 

supra re ECF 353-4 through 353-7; 351-1 

through 351-4; see also Ong Decl. ¶¶ 3–4, 

ECF 370.

Because the redacted portions of the 

document may be sealed, no further action is 

required.

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motions at ECF 353 and 359 are GRANTED, and 

the sealing motion at ECF 350 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART without 

prejudice. In particular, the Court DENIED without prejudice Google’s request to file under seal 

Exhibits 11–41 of the Berry Declaration in support of Google’s Motion for Summary Judgment, 

except as to the names of the opt-in plaintiffs, because Plaintiffs (the designating party) have not 

filed a declaration in support of the sealing. Google must file redacted versions of the documents 

into the public record no earlier than 4 days and no later than 10 days form the filing of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 20, 2018

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-01824-BLF Document 377 Filed 09/20/18 Page 7 of 7