Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04080/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04080-14/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 PLAINTIFF’S 

UNOPPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS IN 

SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN 

SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS 

CERTIFICATION UNDER SEAL

[Re: ECF 178]

Plaintiff has filed an administrative motion to seal portions of her Reply in Support of 

Motion for Class Certification, as well as Exhibits 2 and 3 attached to the Declaration of Rafey S. 

Balabanian in Support of Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification 

(“Balabanian Reply Declaration”). The motion is GRANTED for the reasons discussed 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, 

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 reply 

brief regarding her motion for class certification, and documents submitted in support, 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 

Case 5:13-cv-04080-BLF Document 194 Filed 08/15/16 Page 1 of 2
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

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 Exhibits 2 and 3 to the Balabanian Reply Declaration on the basis 

that Defendants designated them as confidential, and moves to seal portions of her Reply in 

Support of Motion for Class Certification that discuss Exhibits 2 and 3. Exhibit 2 contains 

excerpts of the transcript of a deposition of a Google software engineer taken in this case. Exhibit 

3 contains excerpts of the transcript of a deposition of a Google Engineering Director taken in 

another case and produced by Defendants in this case. Defendants submit the declaration of their 

counsel, Breena M. Roos, who states that both exhibit contain discussions of Defendants’ business 

matters, including Google Wallet and Google Play, and that the Court previously ordered portions 

of the two transcripts sealed in this case. Roos Decl. ¶ 3, ECF 183. Plaintiff proposes limited 

redactions to her Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification to omit portions of the brief 

that discuss Exhibits 2 and 3.1 Defendants have established compelling reasons for the requested 

sealing.

The motion to seal Exhibts 2 and 3 in their entirety, and the portions of Plaintiff’s Reply in 

Support of Motion for Class Certification, is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2016 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

 

1

Plaintiff is reminded that the unredacted version of a document as to which partial sealing is 

sought “must indicate, 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). The Court drew this 

requirement to Plaintiff’s attention when she failed to provide the required highlighting in 

connection with a prior motion for sealing. See Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part 

Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal, ECF 161. Plaintiff also is 

reminded of the requirement that she provide courtesy copies of her filings to chambers. See Civ. 

L.R. 5-1(e)(7). Future violations of these requirements will result in the submission being 

stricken. 

Case 5:13-cv-04080-BLF Document 194 Filed 08/15/16 Page 2 of 2