Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01824/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01824-38/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, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GOOGLE LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-01824-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART UNOPPOSED 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO 

SEAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

[Re: ECF 406, 409]

Before the Court are two unopposed administrative motions to file under seal portions of 

Defendant’s summary judgment motion and Plaintiff’s opposition thereto. ECF 406, 409. For the 

reasons stated below, the motion at ECF 406 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, 

and the motion at ECF 409 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. 

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 

Case 5:15-cv-01824-BLF Document 412 Filed 12/07/18 Page 1 of 6
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

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. 

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) requiresthe 

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 

Case 5:15-cv-01824-BLF Document 412 Filed 12/07/18 Page 2 of 6
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

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 Defendant’s and Plaintiff’s sealing motions and the declarations of 

the designating parties submitted in support. The Court finds that the parties have articulated 

compelling reasons to seal certain portions of the submitted documents. The Court’s rulings on 

the sealing requests are set forth in the tables below.

A. ECF 406

ECF 

No.

Document to be 

Sealed:

Result Reasoning

406-4

(407)

Portions of Google’s 

Motion for Summary 

Judgment

GRANTED as 

to redacted 

portions, 

except those 

citing Heath 

deposition.

DENIED as to 

redacted 

portions citing 

the Heath 

deposition.

All redacted portions except those citing the 

Heath deposition reference sealable material 

in the below exhibits and are thus sealable.

Because the redacted portions of the 

document may be sealed, no further action is 

required.

The request is denied as to the redacted 

portions citing the Heath deposition because 

Plaintiff, the designating party, has not filed 

a declaration in support of the sealing. Civ. 

L.R. 79-5(e).

Google is ORDERED to file a version of this 

document with the Heath deposition cites 

unredacted in the public record no earlier 

than 4 days and no later than 10 days from 

the date of this order.

406-6

(407-1)

Portions of 

Declaration of Brian 

Ong In Support of 

Google’s Motion to 

for Summary 

Judgment (“Ong

Decl.”)

GRANTED as 

to redacted 

portions.

There are compelling reasons to seal the 

redacted portions because they contain 

highly confidential and sensitive information 

relating to Google’s strategies and techniques 

for interviewing candidates, the release of 

which could harm Google. Mot. at 3, ECF 

406; Ong. Decl. ¶¶ 4, 7, ECF 406-1; see ECF 

105; ECF 198; ECF 253; ECF 298.

Because Google has filed a redacted version 

of this document on the docket, no further 

action is required.

Case 5:15-cv-01824-BLF Document 412 Filed 12/07/18 Page 3 of 6
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

406-6

(407-1)

Ong Decl. Ex. 1

(gHire dossier)

GRANTED as 

to entire 

document.

There are compelling reasons to seal the 

gHire dossier because it contains

competitively sensitive information, and 

disclosure of the dossier could compromise 

the objectivity of interviewers’ assessments. 

Ong. Decl. ¶ 4. Similar documents were 

previously filed under seal pursuant to Court 

order. ECF 253.

Because the entirety of the document may be 

sealed, no further action is required.

406-8

(407-2)

Portions of 

Declaration of 

Elizabeth Falcone In 

Support of Google’s 

Motion for Summary 

Judgment (“Falcone 

Decl.”)

DENIED. Google includes this document in its 

proposed order, but the document contains 

no redactions.

Because the entirety of the document was 

filed in the public record, no further action is 

required.

406-8

(407-2)

Falcone Decl. Ex. 1 

(Heath deposition 

excerpts)

DENIED. The request is denied because Plaintiff, the 

designating party, has not filed a declaration 

in support of the sealing. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e).

Google is ORDERED to file a version of this 

document in the public record no earlier than 

4 days and no later than 10 days from the 

date of this order.

406-8

(407-2)

Falcone Decl. Ex. 2 

(Ong deposition 

excerpts)

GRANTED as 

to entire 

document.

There are compelling reasons to seal the 

entire excerpt because it contains highly 

confidential and sensitive information 

relating to Google’s strategies and techniques 

for training interviewers and interviewing 

candidates, the release of which could harm 

Google. Mot. at 3; Ong. Decl. ¶¶ 3(c), 5–7.

Because the entirety of the document may be 

sealed, no further action is required.

406-8

(407-2)

Falcone Decl. Ex. 3 

(Chun deposition 

excerpts)

GRANTED as 

to entire 

document.

There are compelling reasons to seal the 

entire excerpt because it contains highly 

confidential and sensitive information 

relating to Google’s strategies and techniques 

for interviewing candidates, as well as 

confidential gHire dossier documents, the 

release of which could harm Google. Mot. at 

3; Ong. Decl. ¶¶ 3(a), 5–7.

Because the entirety of the document may be 

sealed, no further action is required.

Case 5:15-cv-01824-BLF Document 412 Filed 12/07/18 Page 4 of 6
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

406-8

(407-2)

Falcone Decl. Ex. 4 

(Tang deposition 

excerpts)

GRANTED as 

to entire 

document.

There are compelling reasons to seal the 

entire excerpt because it contains highly 

confidential and sensitive information 

relating to Google’s strategies and techniques 

for interviewing candidates, as well as

confidential gHire dossier documents, the 

release of which could harm Google. Mot. at 

3; Ong. Decl. ¶¶ 3(b), 5–7.

Because the entirety of the document may be 

sealed, no further action is required.

B. ECF 409

ECF 

No.

Document to be 

Sealed:

Result Reasoning

409-3

(408)

Plaintiff’s Opposition 

to Motion for 

Summary Judgment

GRANTED as 

to redacted 

portions.

References sealable material in below 

exhibits.

Because the redacted portions of the 

document may be sealed, no further action is 

required.

409-5

(408-3)

Exhibit A to 

Declaration of Dow 

W. Patten

(Frank Tang 

Deposition Excerpts)

GRANTED as 

to entire 

document.

There are compelling reasons to seal the 

entire excerpt because it contains highly 

confidential and sensitive information 

relating to Google’s strategies and techniques 

for interviewing candidates, release of which 

could harm Google. Ong Decl. ISO Pl. Mot. 

¶¶ 3(a), 5–6, ECF 410.

Because the entirety of the document may be 

sealed, no further action is required.

409-6

(408-4)

Exhibit B to

Declaration of Dow 

W. Patten

(Documents Produced 

by Google)

GRANTED as 

to entire 

documents.

There are compelling reasons to seal the 

documents because they contain highly 

confidential and sensitive information 

relating to Google’s strategies and techniques 

for interviewing candidates, release of which 

could harm Google. Ong Pl. Decl. ¶¶ 3(b), 

5–6.

Because the entirety of the documents may 

be sealed, no further action is required.

409-7

(408-7)

Exhibit E to 

Declaration of Dow 

W. Patten

(Ong 30(b)(6) 

Deposition Excerpts)

GRANTED as 

to entire 

document.

There are compelling reasons to seal the 

entire excerpt because it contains highly 

confidential and sensitive information 

relating to Google’s strategies and techniques 

for training interviewers and interviewing 

candidates, the release of which could harm 

Google. Ong. Pl. Decl. ¶¶ 3(c), 5–6.

Because the entirety of the document may be 

sealed, no further action is required.

Case 5:15-cv-01824-BLF Document 412 Filed 12/07/18 Page 5 of 6
6

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

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motion at ECF 406 is GRANTED IN PART AND 

DENIED IN PART, and the sealing motion at ECF 409 is GRANTED.

Google must file redacted versions of its summary judgment motion and the Heath 

Declaration into the public record no earlier than 4 days and no later than 10 days from the filing 

of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 7, 2018

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-01824-BLF Document 412 Filed 12/07/18 Page 6 of 6