Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04080/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04080-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory 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

ALICE SVENSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

GOOGLE, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-04080-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

UNOPPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS IN 

SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S 

RESPONSES IN OPPOSITION TO 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION 

TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY 

UNDER SEAL

[Re: ECF 172]

Plaintiff has filed an administrative motion to seal with respect to her Response in 

Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment; Response in Opposition to 

Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony; and supporting documents attached to the 

Declaration of Rafey S. Balabanian (“Balabanian Declaration”). The motion is GRANTED IN 

PART AND DENIED IN PART for the reasons set forth below.

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

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. 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)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are 

“more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of 

“compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 

Case 5:13-cv-04080-BLF Document 192 Filed 08/15/16 Page 1 of 4
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

1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed 

upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s 

responses to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and motion to exclude testimony are 

more than tangentially related to the merits. Therefore, the “compelling reasons” standard applies.

In addition to satisfying the “compelling reasons” test, sealing motions filed in this district 

must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). A party 

moving to seal a document in whole or in part must file a declaration establishing that the 

identified material is “sealable.” 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.” Id. Where the moving party 

requests sealing of documents because they have been designated confidential by another party

under a protective order, the burden of establishing compelling reasons for sealing is placed on the 

designating party. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e). 

Plaintiff moves to seal some documents that she herself has designated as confidential, as 

well as other documents that Defendants have designated as confidential. Plaintiff submits the 

declaration of her counsel, J. Dominick Larry to establish that documents she has designated as 

confidential are sealable, see Larry Decl., ECF 172-1, and Defendants submit the declaration of 

their counsel, Charles C. Sipos, to establish that documents they have designated as confidential 

are sealable, see Sipos Decl., ECF 176.

A. Documents that Defendants Assert are Sealable

Plaintiff moves to seal the following exhibits to the Balabanian Declaration in their entirety

on the basis that Defendants have designated them as confidential: Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 

13, 15, and 16. She also moves to seal in part Exhibit 11 to the Balabanian Declaration on the 

same basis.

Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are excerpts of deposition testimony of Defendants’ employees, 

in which the employees discussed Defendants’ confidential, sensitive, and proprietary information. 

Sipos Decl. ¶ 4.

Exhibits 8, 9, and 13 are Defendants’ internal documents and correspondence. Mr. Sipos 

Case 5:13-cv-04080-BLF Document 192 Filed 08/15/16 Page 2 of 4
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

states in his declaration that the internal documents and correspondence contain confidential, 

sensitive, and proprietary information regarding Defendants’ business matters, including Google 

Wallet and Google Play. Sipos Decl. ¶ 3. 

Exhibit 11 contains excerpts of Defendants’ discovery responses. Defendants’ counsel, 

Mr. Sipos, states in his declaration that those excerpts contain confidential, sensitive, and 

proprietary information regarding Defendants’ business matters, including Google Wallet and 

Google Play. Sipos Decl. ¶ 6. 

Exhibits 15 and 16 are excerpts of deposition testimony of Defendants’ experts, Douglas 

Kidder and Dominique Hanssens, discussing aspects of the report of Plaintiff’s expert, Henry 

Fishkind, Ph.D., which previously have been sealed by the Court.

Defendants have established compelling reasons for sealing the above documents and the 

request for sealing is narrowly tailored to seal only sealable material. The motion to seal is 

GRANTED as to Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 16 to the Balabanian Declaration.

B. Documents that Plaintiff Asserts are Sealable

Plaintiff moves to seal in part Exhibit 10 to the Balabanian Declaration, which contains 

excerpts of her deposition. She also moves to seal in its entirety Exhibit 14 to the Balabanian 

Declaration, which contains excerpts of the deposition testimony of Plaintiff’s expert, Henry 

Fishkind, Ph.D.

Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Larry, states in his declaration that Plaintiff has designated her 

deposition transcript as “Confidential,” and that Plaintiff seeks to seal the deposition transcript “to 

the extent that portions of Svenson’s testimony contain ‘Confidential’ information.” Larry Decl. ¶ 

4. Mr. Larry also states that Plaintiff has designated Dr. Fishkind’s deposition transcript as 

“Confidential.” Id. The fact that Plaintiff previously designated these deposition transcripts as 

“Confidential” is insufficient to justify sealing. 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.”). The compelling 

reasons standard must be met even as to documents that were previously filed under seal or 

protective order. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 

Case 5:13-cv-04080-BLF Document 192 Filed 08/15/16 Page 3 of 4
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

Because Plaintiff has not shown the requisite compelling reasons with respect to her own 

deposition transcript or that of Dr. Fishkind, the sealing motion is DENIED as to Exhibits 10 and 

14. The Court will not consider Exhibits 10 and 14 to the Balabanian Declaration unless they are 

filed publicly within seven days of this order. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(f). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-04080-BLF Document 192 Filed 08/15/16 Page 4 of 4