Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01824/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01824-16/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 INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-01824-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO 

FILE UNDER SEAL CONSENT FORMS 

AND NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY 

WITHDRAWAL OF CONSENT FORMS

[Re: ECF 188, 190]

Plaintiff Cheryl Fillekes and the Opt-In Plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”) have filed two

administrative motions to file under seal. Defendant Google Inc. (“Google”) did not file a 

response. Plaintiffs request to seal (1) the Opt-In Plaintiffs’ Consent to Join Forms, ECF 188; and 

(2) the names of Opt-In Plaintiffs in Plaintiffs’ Notice of Voluntary Withdrawal of Consent to Join 

Forms, ECF 190. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motions to seal.

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 197 Filed 08/11/17 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

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). 

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) 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

First, Plaintiffs seek to file the Opt-In Plaintiffs’ consent forms under seal. These consent 

forms contain personal information concerning Google’s applicants, including individuals’ names, 

Case 5:15-cv-01824-BLF Document 197 Filed 08/11/17 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

dates of birth, home addresses, and contact information. ECF 188; Kotchen Decl. ¶ 2, ECF 188-1. 

The Court previously permitted putative class members’ consent forms to be sealed. ECF 152.

Second, in connection with Plaintiffs’ public filing of their Notice of Voluntary 

Withdrawal of Consent to Join Forms, Plaintiffs seek to redact only the names of the Opt-In 

Plaintiffs who wish to withdraw their consent forms. ECF 190. Plaintiffs believe the sealing of the 

names of the class members wishing to withdraw their consent forms is justified in light of the 

Court’s prior sealing of putative class members’ consent forms. Kotchen Decl. ¶ 3, ECF 190-1. 

The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ motions to seal and the declarations in support thereof. 

As the Court articulated in its previous order sealing the putative class members’ consent forms, 

ECF 152, the standard under which the instant sealing motion is resolved is irrelevant. The Ninth 

Circuit has found that compelling reasons exist to protect an individual’s privacy interest and to 

prevent exposure to or harm or identity theft. Nursing Home Pension Fund v. Oracle Corp., C01-

00988, 2007 WL 3232267, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2007) (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1134). 

Accordingly, the Court finds the protection of the Opt-In Plaintiffs’ private information to 

constitute both good cause and a compelling reason to seal. Likewise, Plaintiffs have established 

good cause and compelling reasons to redact the names of the Opt-In Plaintiffs wishing to 

withdraw their consent forms. Plaintiffs’ requests are also narrowly tailored. Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). 

Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motions to seal. 

Accordingly, the following documents may be filed under seal:

Document Portion(s) Filed Under Seal

Consent to Joint Forms (Ex. A), Entire Document

Notice of Voluntary Withdrawal of Consent to 

Join Forms

Opt-In Plaintiffs’ Names Only

Dated: August 11, 2017

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-01824-BLF Document 197 Filed 08/11/17 Page 3 of 3