Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01824/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01824-8/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 INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-01824-BLF 

ORDER REGARDING SEALING 

MOTIONS PERTAINING TO MOTION 

FOR CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION

BRIEFING

[Re: ECF 74, 94, 102]

Before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal portions of their 

briefing and exhibits in connection with the pending motion for conditional certification. ECF 74, 

94, 102. For the reasons stated below, the motions are 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 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, 

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. 

In addition, 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-

Case 5:15-cv-01824-BLF Document 105 Filed 08/17/16 Page 1 of 3
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

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. 

II. DISCUSSION

The Court has reviewed the parties’ sealing motions and respective declarations in support 

thereof. The Court finds the parties have articulated compelling reasons to seal certain portions of 

most of the submitted documents. The proposed redactions are also narrowly tailored. The 

Court’s rulings on the sealing request are set forth in the tables below:

A. ECF 74

Identification of Documents 

to be Sealed

Description of Documents Court’s Order

Portions of Motion for 

Conditional Certification

References below exhibits GRANTED for any portions 

referencing Exhibits 1-2, 4-5, 

15-19 and DENIED for any 

portions referencing Exhibits 

3, 8, 13-14.

Exhibits 1-2 Discloses confidential 

information about Google’s 

hiring process

GRANTED

Exhibits 4-5 and 15-19 Employment applications 

containing personal 

information

GRANTED

Exhibits 3, 8, 13-14 Designated Highly 

Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes 

Only by Google

DENIED because supporting 

declaration at ECF 80 did not 

provide any reasons to seal.

B. ECF 94

Identification of Documents 

to be Sealed

Description of Documents Court’s Order

Google’s Opposition to 

Plaintiff Fillekes’ Motion For 

Conditional Certification and 

Heath’s Partial Joinder

References exhibits filed in 

connection with Motion and 

below

GRANTED except for any 

portion referencing Exhibit 3, 

8, and 13-14 to the Motion for 

Conditional Certification.

Declaration of Brian Ong In 

Support of Google’s 

Opposition to Plaintiff 

Fillekes’ Motion For 

Conditional Certification of

Collective Action and Heath’s 

Partial Joinder

Contains personal information 

of non-party declarants

GRANTED

Exhibits 1-9 Confidential gHire records for 

nine separate candidates for 

employment positions at 

GRANTED

Case 5:15-cv-01824-BLF Document 105 Filed 08/17/16 Page 2 of 3
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

Google

Exhibits 10-12 Confidential gHire Committee 

notes

GRANTED

C. ECF 102

Identification of Documents 

to be Sealed

Description of Documents Court’s Order

Reply Brief References Exhibit 1 to the 

Motion for Conditional 

Certification, which contains 

confidential information about 

Google’s hiring process

GRANTED

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motions at ECF 74, 94, 102 are 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 form 

the filing of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-01824-BLF Document 105 Filed 08/17/16 Page 3 of 3