Google LLC v. Point Financial, Inc.

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
GOOGLE LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
POINT FINANCIAL, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-cv-04033-BLF
ORDER GRANTING GOOGLE LLC'S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL
[Re: ECF No. 142]
Before the Court is Google LLC’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. ECF
No. 142 (“Mot.”). Defendant Point Financial, Inc. opposes. ECF No. 147 (“Opp.”). For the
reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS the motion.
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 & Cnty. 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, 1099–101 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–80.
In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local
Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a
Case 5:25-cv-04033-BLF Document 148 Filed 01/12/26 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
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.” Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Civil Local Rule 79-5 requires the
moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” Civil L.R. 79-
5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.”
Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(3).
II. DISCUSSION
Google LLC (“Google”) seeks to seal portions of its Emergency Motion to Enforce the
Preliminary Injunction and for Contempt Sanctions Against Point Financial, Inc. (“PFI”) and
portions of certain exhibits thereto. Mot. at 2.
Google separates its sealing requests into three categories. The first category is comprised
of “a single term that pertains to Google’s confidential and proprietary technology at issue in this
litigation.” Mot. at 3. Google argues the disclosure of this information would reveal Google’s
confidential technology and in turn “weaken the competitive advantage Google maintains in the
marketplace.” Id.
The second category of requests consists of “direct quotes from the Master Purchase
Agreement and Amendment 2 to the Statement of Work.” Id. Google argues that the disclosure
of this information would expose Google’s “strategic decision-making with respect to the terms
offered to its contracting partners” and harm its competitive advantage in the marketplace. Id.
The third category of requests is the “identities of the Vendors that manufacture, test, and
assemble the chip at issue in this litigation,” and with which Google has confidential agreements.
Id. Google asserts that revealing these identities would give its competitors and potential partners
“unfair leverage.” Id.
PFI opposes Google’s sealing motion only with respect to the first two categories. As to
the first category, the single term pertaining to the at-issue technology, PFI argues that absent
“underlying specific details of the components and manufacture of these integrated chips, the
single term description conveys no greater sensitive information.” Opp. at 2. As to the second
category, namely quotations from contracts, PFI contends that Google’s request is overbroad and
Case 5:25-cv-04033-BLF Document 148 Filed 01/12/26 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
is not comprised of sufficiently sensitive business information to justify sealing. Id. at 3.
As the sealing request relates to the Emergency Motion to Enforce the Preliminary
Injunction and for Contempt Sanctions, which the Court finds is “more than tangentially related to
the underlying cause[s] of action,” the Court will apply the “compelling reasons” standard. Ctr.
for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099–101. The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the
materials Google identifies. First, compelling reasons exist to seal trade secrets. Kamakana, 447
F.3d at 1179; Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc., No. 21-cv-02436, 2023 WL 7678270, at *2
(N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2023). Second, the “compelling reasons” standard is met for confidential
business information that would harm a party’s competitive standing if publicly disclosed. See
Music Grp. Macao Com. Offshore Ltd. v. Foote, No. 14-cv-03078, 2015 WL 3993147, at *6 (N.D.
Cal. June 30, 2015); Jam Cellars, Inc. v. Wine Grp. LLC, No. 19-cv-01878, 2020 WL 5576346, at
*2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2020) (finding compelling reasons for sealing “confidential business and
proprietary information”); Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 17-cv-00220, 2019 WL
95922, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019) (finding compelling reasons for “information that, if
published, may harm . . . competitive standing and divulges terms of confidential contracts,
contract negotiations, or trade secrets”); In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir.
2008) (finding sealable “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing”).
The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. See Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(3).
Case 5:25-cv-04033-BLF Document 148 Filed 01/12/26 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
The Court’s ruling is summarized below:
Public ECF
No. /
Sealed
ECF No.
Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling
ECF
No. 141 /
ECF
No. 142-4
Google LLC’s
Emergency Motion to
Enforce the
Preliminary
Injunction and for
Contempt Sanctions
against Point
Financial, Inc.
(“Emergency
Motion”)
Highlighted portions at
1:11-12; 2:6, 9, 19, 25;
3:13-14, 19-20, 22, 24;
5:12, 22, 27; 6:1, 4, 11, 13-
14, 18-19; 7:25; 8:1-2, 4,
20, 24, 28; 9:1, 3, 5.
GRANTED as containing
confidential business
information, the release of
which could cause Google
harm.
ECF
No. 141-3 /
ECF
No. 142-5
Exhibit A to the
Emergency Motion
Highlighted portions at 6:4-
5, 17, 28; 13:27; 18:8-9, 22,
27; 65:6, 8-10; 85:20, 24;
86:2, 3; 90:2-3
GRANTED as containing
confidential business
information, the release of
which could cause Google
harm.
ECF
No. 141-6 /
ECF
No. 142-6
Exhibit D to the
Emergency Motion
Highlighted portions at
1:10, 22-23, 26, 28; 2:33;
3:1, 31; 4:5-6, 10, 19.
GRANTED as containing
confidential business
information, the release of
which could cause Google
harm.
III. ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Google LLC’s Administrative
Motion to File Under Seal, ECF No. 142, is GRANTED.
Dated: January 12, 2026
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-04033-BLF Document 148 Filed 01/12/26 Page 4 of 4