In re Google Assistant Privacy Litigation

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
IN RE GOOGLE ASSISTANT PRIVACY
LITIGATION
Case No. 19-cv-04286-BLF
ORDER GRANTING JOINT REQUEST
FOR PROPOSED REDACTIONS
[Re: ECF No. 547]
Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP (“Labaton”) has filed a request to seal the attachment to this
Court’s December 15, 2025 Order Regarding Recent Correspondence. See ECF No. 545-1.
Labaton represents that Counsel for Google and Plaintiffs have confirmed that they do not object
to the sealing request. ECF No. 547 (“Mot.”) at 1. For the reasons stated below, the Court
GRANTS the motion, and the attachment shall remain under 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.
Case 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 548 Filed 12/22/25 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
However, “while protecting the public’s interest in access to the courts, we must remain
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 1180. 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) (internal
quotations marks and citation omitted).
In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal
documents must comply with the procedures established by Civil Local Rule 79-5. That rule
requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a document under seal,
including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (ii)
the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is
not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Civil Local Rule 79-5 requires the moving party to provide
“evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(2). And the proposed
order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3).
II. DISCUSSION
The “good cause” standard governs Labaton’s motion to seal. The material Labaton seeks
to seal is related to arbitration proceedings, which are “unrelated, or only tangentially related” to
the merits of the case. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Accordingly, a request to seal
documents concerning those proceedings need only meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule
Case 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 548 Filed 12/22/25 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
26(c). Id. at 1179–80.
Labaton has shown that good cause exists to seal the exhibit attached to the Court’s Order.
Labaton explains that the material it seeks to seal contains “confidential and privileged settlement
discussions and communications,” the disclosure of which would “cause harm to other Labaton
Arbitration Claimants’ claims per the terms of those settlement discussions and agreements.”
Mot. at 1–2. Moreover, the attachment includes content that is “verbatim” repeated from “another
document previously sealed in its entirety by the Court.” Mot. at 1; see ECF No. 546 (sealing,
inter alia, ECF No. 538-1).
Upon review of the attachment and Labaton’s request, the Court is persuaded that Labaton
has provided good cause to seal the attachment and that the proposed redactions are narrowly
tailored. Accordingly, the Court rules as follows:
ECF No. Document Portion(s) Requested
to Seal
Ruling
545-1 Exhibit to the Court’s
Order Regarding
Recent
Correspondence
Entire document GRANTED as
containing
confidential
information relating
to settlement
discussions, the
disclosure of which
could harm other
arbitration claimants.
III. ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the request at ECF No. 547 is GRANTED.
Dated: December 22, 2025
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
Case 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 548 Filed 12/22/25 Page 3 of 3