Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04080/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04080-11/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 DEFENDANTS’

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL 

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

[Re: ECF 163]

Defendants have filed an administrative motion to seal in part their Notice of Motion and 

Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff’s Individuals Claims; Notice of Motion and Motion 

to Exclude the Testimony of Henry Fishkind; Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class 

Certification; and supporting documents attached as exhibits to the Omnibus Declaration of 

Charles Sipos (“Sipos Declaration”). The motion is GRANTED for the reasons set forth below.

In Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Hololulu, the Ninth Circuit recognized a “general right 

to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” 

Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Hololulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). 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 Defendants’ briefing related to their motion for summary 

judgment, their motion to exclude testimony, and Plaintiff’s motion for class certification are more 

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

Case 5:13-cv-04080-BLF Document 191 Filed 08/12/16 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

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).

A. Documents that Defendants Move to Seal in their Entirety

Defendants move to seal the following documents in their entirety: Exhibits 4, 5, 13, 14, 

15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, and 33 to the Sipos Declaration. These documents 

fall into three general categories: rebuttal expert reports, screenshots and other information 

regarding Plaintiff’s app purchase, and deposition transcripts. Defendants’ counsel, Breena M. 

Roos, states in her declaration that all of these documents disclose confidential, sensitive, and 

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

Google Play. Roos Decl. ¶ 2, ECF 163-1. She states further that public disclosure of the 

documents would provide insight into Defendants’ confidential business matters and cause 

Defendants to suffer competitive harm. Id. The Court concludes that Defendants’ request as to 

these documents is narrowly tailored. The rebuttal expert reports address Defendants’ confidential

business matters and technical aspects of Defendants’ services. The screenshots and similar 

documents contain technical and/or customer data. Finally, the deposition transcripts are limited 

to excerpts in which confidential or proprietary information is discussed. 

The motion to seal is GRANTED as to Exhibits 4, 5, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 

28, 29, 31, 32, and 33 to the Sipos Declaration. 

B. Documents that Defendants Move to Seal in Part

1. Defendants’ Motions and Briefing

Defendants move to seal in part their Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment 

as to Plaintiff’s Individuals Claims, Notice of Motion and Motion to Exclude the Testimony of 

Henry Fishkind, and Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification. The proposed 

redactions discuss the sealable documents referenced above, and are narrowly tailored.

The motion to seal is GRANTED as to the proposed redactions of these documents.

Case 5:13-cv-04080-BLF Document 191 Filed 08/12/16 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

2. Exhibit 1 to Sipos Declaration

Defendants move to seal in part their discovery responses attached as Exhibit 1 to the 

Sipos Declaration. Ms. Roos states in her declaration that the redacted portions contain 

confidential, sensitive, and proprietary information regarding Defendants’ business matters, 

including Google Wallet and Google Play. Roos Decl. ¶ 6. She states further that public 

disclosure of the documents would provide insight into Defendants’ confidential business matters 

and cause Defendants to suffer competitive harm. Id. The redactions are narrowly tailored to 

address these concerns.

The motion to seal is GRANTED as to Exhibit 1 to the Sipos Declaration 

3. Exhibit 30 to Sipos Declaration

Defendants move to seal in part excerpts of Plaintiff’s deposition testimony, attached as 

Exhibit 30 to the Sipos Declaration. Ms. Roos states in her declaration that prior to Defendants’ 

filing of the present motion to seal, Plaintiff consented to the filing of the deposition testimony 

publicly with redactions only as to Plaintiff’s email address, username, telephone number, and 

city, state, and zip code. Roos Decl. ¶ 9. The proposed redactions are limited to this confidential 

personal information regarding Plaintiff.

The motion to seal is GRANTED as to Exhibit 30 to the Sipos Declaration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 12, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-04080-BLF Document 191 Filed 08/12/16 Page 3 of 3