Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04080/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04080-13/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 DEFENDANT 

GOOGLE INC. AND GOOGLE 

PAYMENT CORPORATION’S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL CONFIDENTIAL 

INFORMATION

[Re: ECF 185]

Defendants have filed an administrative motion to seal Exhibits D, E, and F to the 

Supplemental Declaration of Charles C. Sipos in Support of Defendants Google Inc. and Google 

Payment Corporation’s (1) Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff’s 

Individual Claims and (2) Reply in Support of Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Henry 

Fishkind. 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 the documents in 

question, which are submitted in support of Defendants’ Reply in Support of Motion for Summary 

Case 5:13-cv-04080-BLF Document 193 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

Judgment as to Plaintiff’s Individual Claims and Reply in Support of Motion to Exclude the 

Testimony of Henry Fishkind, 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. 

Defendants submit the declaration of their counsel, Breena M. Roos, who states that 

Exhibits D and E, which are excerpts of deposition testimony of Defendants’ employees, disclose 

information regarding Defendants’ business matters, including Google Wallet. Roos Decl. ¶ 3, 

ECF 185-1. Exhibit F is “an internal document that contains confidential, sensitive, and 

proprietary information regarding Defendants’ business matters, including Google Wallet.” Id. ¶ 

4. Ms. Roos states that “Public disclosure of Defendants’ confidential and proprietary information 

reflected in Exhibits D-F would provide insight into Defendants’ confidential business matters and 

cause Defendants to suffer competitive harm.” Id. ¶ 5. The Court has reviewed the exhibits in 

question and finds that the deposition excerpts are narrowly tailored to exclude only sealable 

matter.

The motion to seal is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-04080-BLF Document 193 Filed 08/15/16 Page 2 of 2