Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01824/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01824-23/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, on behalf of himself, 

and 

CHERYL FILLEKES, on behalf of herself 

and others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

GOOGLE LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-01824-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

UNOPPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO SEAL

[Re: ECF 257]

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to file under seal portions of its 

briefing and exhibits in connection with their opposition to Defendant Google LLC’s (“Google”) 

pending motion to Decertify Collective Action. See ECF 257. Google does not oppose, and has 

filed the required declaration pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e) in support of Plaintiffs’ sealing 

motion with respect to those exhibits that Google has designated confidential. See Declaration of 

Brian Ong (“Ong Decl.”), ECF 296. For the reasons that follow, as well as those set forth in this 

Court’s prior sealing orders on the documents at issue, Plaintiffs’ motion to seal is GRANTED.

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. 

Case 5:15-cv-01824-BLF Document 298 Filed 06/11/18 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

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

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. 

Case 5:15-cv-01824-BLF Document 298 Filed 06/11/18 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

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), 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 Plaintiffs’ motion to seal and the declaration of Daniel Kotchen

submitted in support thereof. See ECF 257; Declaration of Daniel Kotchen (“Kotchen Decl.”), 

ECF 257-1. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to file under seal portions of 10 exhibits accompanying 

their Opposition to Google’s Motion to Decertify Collective Action. Kotchen Decl. ¶ 2. Plaintiffs 

explain that these 10 exhibits contain personal information regarding Google’s applicants, 

including individuals’ names, contact information, current employer, and compensation 

information. Id. ¶ 3. Plaintiffs also move to file an additional 18 exhibits accompanying their 

Opposition under seal in their entirety because Google has designated the documents and 

information contained in such exhibits as Confidential or “Highly Confidential—Attorneys’ Eyes 

Only” pursuant to the protective order in this case. Id. ¶ 6. Plaintiffs also move for permission to 

file a redacted version of their opposition brief publicly, redacting portions that directly quote or 

summarize these exhibits. See ECF 257 at 2.

The Court finds that procedural motions such as motions to decertify collective actions are 

non-dispositive motions to which the “good cause” standard applies. See Benedict v. HewlettPackard Co., No. 13-CV-00119-BLF, 2016 WL 3568922, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2016); see also 

Brewer v. Gen. Nutrition Corp., No. 11-cv-3587, 2014 WL 5873328, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 

Case 5:15-cv-01824-BLF Document 298 Filed 06/11/18 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

2014); see also Dugan v. Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC, No. 12-CV-02549-WHA NJV, 2013 WL 

1435223, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2013) (“[T]he vast majority of courts within this circuit treat 

motions for class certification as non-dispositive motions to which the ‘good cause’ standard 

applies.”); In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litig., No. 11-CV-02509-LHK, 2013 WL 163779, 

at *2 n.1 (compiling cases and, though recognizing that “there may be circumstances in which a 

motion for class certification is case dispositive,” stating that “the Court applies a ‘good cause’ 

standard here in accordance with the vast majority of other courts within this circuit”). 

Plaintiffs argue that good cause exists to redact the personal information concerning 

Google’s applicants contained in Exhibits 17-19, Exhibits 22-24, and Compilation Exhibits B, C, 

D, and E to their Opposition. ECF 257 at 3. The Court agrees that sealing this information is 

justified to maintain the confidentiality of the Opt-Ins’ personal information and to prevent their 

exposure to harm or identity theft. Moreover, as this Court has previously held, the Opt-Ins’ 

compensation information is private. See ECF 152, 197, 256. As Plaintiffs explain, disclosure of 

such information could harm the Opt-Ins in future salary negotiations with employers or 

prospective employers. ECF 257 at 3. Accordingly, the Court finds that good cause exists to seal 

the Opt-Ins’ private information including their names, dates of birth, home addresses, contact 

information, and compensation information contained in the exhibits attached to Plaintiffs’ 

opposition and portions of the opposition brief itself that refer to such information. Plaintiffs’ 

request is also narrowly tailored. Civ. L.R. 79-5(b)

The 18 additional exhibits that Plaintiffs seek to seal in their entirety have been designated 

Confidential or “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” by Google and contain sensitive 

information concerning Google’s hiring and interview process and interview questions. ECF 257 

at 3. Google asserts that it will suffer competitive harm if these exhibits are made public. Ong 

Decl. ¶ 4. 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. Id. ¶¶ 5-7. This Court has previously ordered that the same or substantially similar 

materials are sealable because they disclose confidential information about Google’s hiring 

Case 5:15-cv-01824-BLF Document 298 Filed 06/11/18 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

process. See ECF 105, 253. In particular, the Court has consistently sealed Google’s gHire 

records including gHire committee notes. ECF 105; see also Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 

Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2016) (compelling reasons to seal “sources of business 

information” that might harm a litigant’s “competitive standing.”). The Court again finds that 

Google has articulated good cause to seal Exhibits 1-6, Exhibits 8-12, Exhibits 20-21, Exhibits 25-

27, and Compilation Exhibits A and F to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Google’s motion to decertify.

III. ORDER

Accordingly, good cause exists to seal portions of Exhibits 17-19, Exhibits 22-24, and 

Compilation Exhibits B, C, D, and E to Plaintiffs’ Opposition, as well as portions of the brief that 

refer to such sealable information. Moreover, good cause exists to seal Exhibits 1-6, Exhibits 8-

12, Exhibits 20-21, Exhibits 25-27, and Compilation Exhibits A and F of Plaintiffs’ Opposition in 

their entirety as well as portions of the brief that refer to such exhibits. Plaintiffs’ proposed 

redactions are also narrowly tailored. Plaintiffs’ motion to seal at ECF 257 is therefore 

GRANTED in its entirety. 

As Plaintiffs have already filed redacted versions of the above exhibits and opposition brief 

in the public record, and filed unredacted versions of such exhibits and briefing under seal, no 

further action is necessary. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 11, 2018

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-01824-BLF Document 298 Filed 06/11/18 Page 5 of 5