Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04080/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04080-10/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 IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

[Re: ECF 158]

Plaintiff has filed an administrative motion to seal in part her Memorandum in Support of 

Motion for Class Certification and to seal in whole or in part documents submitted in support of 

her motion for class certification. The motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART

for the reasons set forth below.

As an initial matter, Plaintiff states that she has submitted the sealing motion to comply 

with the protective order entered in this case and that she does not necessarily believe that the 

documents in question should be sealed in light of the “compelling reasons” test set forth in 

Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Hololulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). See Pl.’s Admin. Motion 

at ¶ 6, ECF 158. Kamakana recognizes a “general right to inspect and copy public records and 

documents, including judicial records and documents.” Id. at 1178. 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 motion for class certification is more than tangentially related to the 

merits and thus agrees with Plaintiff that the “compelling reasons” standard applies.

Case 5:13-cv-04080-BLF Document 161 Filed 06/21/16 Page 1 of 4
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). Where the moving party requests 

sealing of documents because they have been designated confidential by another party under a 

protective order, the burden of articulating compelling reasons for sealing is placed on the 

designating party. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e). Because Plaintiff states that she moves to seal in order to 

comply with the protective order in this case, the burden falls to Defendants to establish 

compelling reasons for sealing. Defendants have submitted the declaration of their attorney, 

Charles C. Sipos, who articulates Defendants’ reasons for sealing the documents in question. See

Sipos Decl., ECF 160.

A. Documents that Plaintiff Moves to Seal in their Entirety

Plaintiff moves to seal the following documents in their entirety: Exhibits 1-3 through 1-6,

1-9 through 1-12, 1-14 through 1-33, 1-35, 1-46, and 1-48 through 1-51 to the Declaration of 

Rafey S. Balabanian in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification. See Balabanian 

Decl., ECF 158-1. These documents fall into three general categories: deposition transcripts, 

emails, and documents containing technical and/or customer data. 

Defendants’ counsel, Mr. Sipos, states in his declaration that all of these documents, with 

the exception of Exhibit 1-48, disclose confidential, sensitive, and proprietary information 

regarding Defendants’ business matters, including Google Wallet and Google Play. Sipos Decl. 

¶¶ 3-7. He states that the information has not been publicly disclosed and that disclosure of the 

information would provide insight into Defendants’ confidential business matters and cause it to 

suffer competitive harm. Id. ¶¶ 6-7. Plaintiff’s request as to these documents is narrowly tailored. 

The deposition transcripts are limited to excerpts in which confidential or proprietary information 

is discussed. The emails discuss Defendants’ internal business affairs, and the remaining 

documents containing technical and/or customer data. Accordingly, the motion to seal is 

GRANTED as to Exhibits 1-3 through 1-6, 1-9 through 1-12, 1-14 through 1-33, 1-35, 1-46, and 

1-49 through 1-51 to the Declaration of Rafey S. Balabanian.

Case 5:13-cv-04080-BLF Document 161 Filed 06/21/16 Page 2 of 4
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

With respect to Exhibit 1-48, which is an excerpt of Plaintiff’s deposition, Mr. Sipos states 

only that Plaintiff designated her testimony as confidential under the protective order and that 

Defendants do not object to the sealing of Plaintiff’s testimony. Mr. Balabanian’s declaration 

submitted in support of Plaintiff’s sealing motion states only that Plaintiff has designated her 

deposition transcript as confidential. The fact that Plaintiff previously designated her deposition 

testimony as confidential is insufficient to justify sealing. The compelling reasons standard must 

be met even as to documents that were previously filed under seal or protective order. Kamakana, 

447 F.3d at 1179. Neither Plaintiff nor Defendants have shown the requisite compelling reasons 

with respect to Plaintiff’s deposition testimony. The motion to seal is DENIED as to Exhibit 1-48.

B. Documents that Plaintiff Moves to Seal in Part

Plaintiff moves to seal the following documents in part: Exhibits 1-13, 1-36, and 1-47 to 

the Declaration of Rafey S. Balabanian. See Balabanian Decl., ECF 158-1. Plaintiff also moves 

to seal portions of her Memorandum in Support of Motion for Class Certification. See id.

Before addressing the substance of these sealing requests, the Court notes that Plaintiff has 

not complied with this Court’s Civil Local Rules, which require that the unredacted version of the 

document as to which 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). While Plaintiff has submitted both redacted and unredacted versions of Exhibits 1-13, 

1-36, and 1-47, as well as her Memorandum, the unredacted versions do not indicate which 

portions of the document have been omitted from the redacted versions. For the sake of judicial 

efficiency, and because Plaintiff seeks redaction as to only four documents, the Court on this one 

occasion has conducted a side-by-side comparison of the redacted and unredacted versions of the 

documents to identify the material as to which sealing is requested. The Court will not undertake 

such an exercise again in this case. Any sealing request that does not comply with Civil Local 

Rule 79-5(d)(1)(D) will be denied without substantive review.

Exhibits 1-13 and 1-36 are Defendants’ discovery responses. Exhibit 1-47 is the report of 

Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Henry Fishkind. Defendants’ counsel, Mr. Sipos, states in his declaration 

that the proposed redacted portions of these documents contain confidential, sensitive, and 

Case 5:13-cv-04080-BLF Document 161 Filed 06/21/16 Page 3 of 4
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

proprietary information regarding Defendants’ business matters. Sipos Decl. ¶¶ 5-6. Mr. Sipos 

also states that the information has not been publicly disclosed and that disclosure would cause 

Defendants competitive harm. Id. ¶ 6. The proposed redactions appear to be narrowly tailored. 

The motion to seal is GRANTED as to the proposed redactions of Exhibits 1-13, 1-36, and 1-47 to 

the Declaration of Rafey S. Balabanian. 

With respect to Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for Class Certification, the 

proposed redactions discuss the sealable portions of the documents referenced above. The 

proposed redactions are narrowly tailored. Accordingly, the motion to seal is GRANTED as to the 

proposed redactions of Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for Class Certification.

C. Conclusion

Plaintiff’s administrative motion to seal is GRANTED as to all documents and portions of 

documents identified therein, with the exception of Exhibit 1-48 to the Declaration of Rafey S. 

Balabanian, as to which the motion is DENIED. The Court will not consider Exhibit 1-48 unless 

it is filed publicly within seven days of this order. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(f). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-04080-BLF Document 161 Filed 06/21/16 Page 4 of 4