Google LLC v. Point Financial, Inc.

[2] 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION [6] 7 GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-04033-BLF 8 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING GOOGLE LLC’S 9 v. AND POINT FINANCIAL, INC.’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO 10 POINT FINANCIAL, INC., SEAL 11 Defendant. [Re: Dkt. Nos. 82, 100] [12] 13 Before the Court are Point Financial, Inc.’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether 14 Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed, Dkt. No. 82, and Google LLC’s Administrative 15 Motion to File Under Seal, Dkt. No. 100. For the reasons described below, the Court DENIES AS 16 MOOT the administrative motion at Dkt. No. 82 and GRANTS the administrative motion at Dkt. 17 No. 100. 18 I. LEGAL STANDARD 19 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 20 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 21 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 , 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 22 U.S. 589 , 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 23 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 24 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 25 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 26 of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 27 access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local 2 Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a 3 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that 4 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive 5 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Civil Local Rule 79-5 requires the 6 moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” Civ. L.R. 797 5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.” 8 Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 9 Further, when a party seeks to seal a document because it has been designated as 10 confidential by another party, the filing party must file an Administrative Motion to Consider 11 Whether Another Party’s Material Should be Sealed. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f). In that case, the filing 12 party need not satisfy the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(1). Instead, the 13 party who designated the material as confidential must, within seven days of the motion’s filing, 14 file a statement and/or declaration that meets the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 7915 5(f)(3). A designating party’s failure to file a statement or declaration may result in the unsealing 16 of the provisionally sealed document without further notice to the designating party. Id. Any 17 party can file a response to that declaration within four days. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(4). 18 II. DISCUSSION 19 A. Dkt. No. 82 20 After Defendant Point Financial, Inc. (“PFI”) refiled certain of the exhibits accompanying 21 PFI’s Response to Application for Order to Show Cause with corrected exhibit numbers, PFI filed 22 this Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Point Financial, Inc.’s Corrected Exhibits E-N to 23 Its Response to Application for Order to Show Cause Should Be Sealed Pursuant to Google, 24 LLC’s Designations and Court Order to request that the Court “consider whether PFI’s corrected 25 Exhibits E–N to PFI’s Response to Google LLC’s Application for Order to Show Cause” should 26 be sealed. Dkt. No. 82 at 2. Google filed a statement in response to the administrative motion, 27 noting that the Court’s July 21, 2025 Order regarding certain of Google’s and PFI’s administrative 1 accompanying sealing motion. Dkt. No. 92 at 2. Rather than filing a statement in support of 2 sealing, Google requests an order denying PFI’s administrative motion at Dkt. No. 82 as moot. 3 As Google’s response indicates, the materials identified in the administrative motion at 4 Dkt. No. 82 are addressed in the Court’s July 21, 2025 Order Regarding Administrative Motions 5 to Seal and in the following Order regarding the administrative motion at Dkt. No. 100. 6 Therefore, the Court DENIES AS MOOT PFI’s separate administrative motion to consider 7 whether another party’s materials should be sealed filed at Dkt. No. 82. 8 B. Dkt. No. 100 9 Google files this Motion for Administrative Relief pursuant to the Court’s July 21, 2025 10 Order Regarding Google LLC’s and Point Financial, Inc.’s Administrative Motions to Seal, Dkt. 11 No. 84, which denied without prejudice certain of Google’s sealing requests and required Google 12 to file any renewed motion to seal by August 4, 2025. Dkt. No. 100 at 2. In this renewed motion 13 to seal, Google argues that the information for which sealing was denied in the Court’s July 21 14 Order is sealable because it consists of: 15 (1) valuable scientific, technical, and engineering information pertaining to the plans to develop, design, and manufacture a product that is the subject of confidential [16] agreements between Google and third parties; (2) provisions of confidential agreements 17 between Google and third parties pertaining to the plans to develop, design, and manufacture a product that contains Google’s scientific, technical, and engineering [18] information not known or readily ascertainable by the general public and which scientific, 19 technical, and engineering information is maintained by Google as confidential in the ordinary course of its business; and (3) non-public information regarding Google’s 20 confidential agreements with third parties pertaining to the plans to develop, design, and 21 manufacture a product that contains Google’s scientific, technical, and engineering information not known or readily ascertainable by the general public and which scientific, 22 technical, and engineering information is maintained by Google as confidential in the 23 ordinary course of its business. [24] Id. at 4 . Google argues that “[p]reserving the confidentiality and secrecy” of Google’s 25 confidential business materials “is critical to preserving Google’s competitive position in the 26 market and to preventing misuse” of the materials. Id. at 5 . 27 As the sealing request relates to an answer and counterclaim and a motion for a 1 cause[s] of action,” the Court will apply the “compelling reasons” standard. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 2 809 F.3d at 1099–101. The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the materials Google 3 identifies. First, compelling reasons exist to seal trade secrets. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179; 4 Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc., No. 21-cv-02436, 2023 WL 7678270 , at *2 (N.D. Cal. 5 Nov. 13, 2023). Second, the “compelling reasons” standard is also met for confidential business 6 information that would harm a party’s competitive standing if publicly disclosed, including 7 materials discussing “network infrastructure and security systems.” See Music Grp. Macao Com. 8 Offshore Ltd. v. Foote, No. 14-cv-03078, 2015 WL 3993147 , at *6 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015); Jam 9 Cellars, Inc. v. Wine Grp. LLC, No. 19-cv-01878, 2020 WL 5576346 , at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 10 2020) (finding compelling reasons for sealing “confidential business and proprietary 11 information”); Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 17-cv-00220, 2019 WL 95922 , at *3 12 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019) (finding compelling reasons for “information that, if published, may harm 13 . . . competitive standing and divulges terms of confidential contracts, contract negotiations, or 14 trade secrets”); In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding sealable 15 “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing”). The Court also finds 16 that the request is narrowly tailored. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 17 The Court’s ruling is summarized below: 18 Dkt. No. Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling 19 100-4 PFI’s Answer and Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing Counterclaim 3:8, 11; 4:23-24; 6:10; confidential business [20] 17:19, 24; 18:1. information, the release of 21 which would cause a party competitive harm. 22 100-4 Exhibit A to PFI’s Highlighted portions. GRANTED as containing Response to confidential business 23 Application for Order information, the release of to Show which would cause a party [24] Cause competitive harm. 25 100-4 Exhibit E to PFI’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing Response to 3:16, 18, 20, 22; 4:4, 6, 8, 9, confidential business 26 Application for Order 13; 5:12; 7:1-2; 9:12, 21; information, the release of to Show Cause 10:14; 11:2-3, 6, 9, 23-24; which would cause a party 27 12:6-7, 10, 13, 18; 13:4, 12- competitive harm. 16:3, 9; 17:1-2, 6, , 8-10, [1] 12, 14-25; 18:1, 6-20, 22, 2 24-25. [3] 100-4 Exhibit F to PFI’s Highlighted portions. GRANTED as containing 4 Response to confidential business Application for Order information, the release of [5] to Show Cause which would cause a party 6 competitive harm. 100-4 Exhibit G to PFI’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing 7 Response to 6:2, 4, 6, 8, 18, 21, 24; confidential business Application for Order 7:4, 8, 14; 8:6-7, 20, 23; information, the release of 8 to Show Cause 9:13; 10:1-8, 10. which would cause a party competitive harm. [10] 11 100-4 Exhibit H to PFI’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing Response to 2:12; 5:6, 8; 6:9, 14; confidential business 12 Application for Order 8:12; 10:4, 7; 11:8, 14-15, information, the release of to Show Cause 25; 12:5-6, 12; 13:12; which would cause a party 13 14:11-13, 24-25; 15:8, 13- competitive harm. 15, 17, 22; 16:2, 5, 7; [14] 17:8, 13, 17, 19; 18:1, 4; 15 19:2-3, 21; 21:17; 22:1-2, 4; 23:3; 27:10; 29:3-5, 8, 1216 15, 18-19; 30:16; 31:4; 32:4, 11; 34:6, 9, 23-24; 17 35:2, 7, 10, 18-19, 24; 36:10, 19-20, 22-23; [18] 37:8-10, 19; 38:4, 8; 19 39:9, 12, 20-22, 24-25; 40:1, 4, 9, 15-19; 41:9-10, 20 12, 14-15, 18-20, 24; 42:12, 4, 8-9, 11, 14-15, 20, 22, 21 25; 43:9, 17, 24; 44:3, 6, 8, 13-27, 20-21, 23; 45:2, 822 10, 19-21, 23-25; 46:1, 3-4, 23 12-13, 16, 22; 47:11, 13, 1516, 19; 48:7-8, 21-22; 49:824 9, 13, 18-20; 50:5-6, 8-9, 12, 22; 51:4, 8-9, 20-23; 25 52:7, 11-13, 15-19; 53:4-5; 54:3, 16, 20-21; 55:5-6. [27] 100-4 Exhibit I to PFI’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing [1] Response to 3:23; 7:8-11; 9:3-5, 7-8, 10, confidential business 2 Application for Order 16; 11:2, 5; 12: 22; 13:3-5; information, the release of to Show Cause 16:4, 7-8, 11, 15, 20, 25; which would cause a party 3 17:1, 14-15, 18, 23; competitive harm. 18:9, 12, 15-16, 19, 22; 4 19:2-3; 20:10, 19-20. 5 100-4 Exhibit J to PFI’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing Response to 7:4; 8:25; 9:1, 4; 10:15-17, confidential business 6 Application for Order 23; 11:4-7, 19, 22; 12:7, 18, information, the release of to Show Cause 20; 13:2-3, 12-14; which would cause a party [7] 14:1-2, 5, 11-13, 23-25; competitive harm. 8 15:3, 6-8; 16:5, 11-12, 16, 20, 22; 17:1, 4, 20; 18:1, 5, 9 22, 25; 19:1, 21, 25; 21:1-2. 100-4 Exhibit M to PFI’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing [10] Response to 3:11-14, 20, 22; 4:4, 9, 11; confidential business Application for Order 5:12-13, 18; 6:2. information, the release of [11] to Show Cause which would cause a party 12 competitive harm. [13] 14 100-4 Exhibit N to PFI’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing Response to 3:15-26; 4:1-26; 5:1-21; confidential business 15 Application for Order 6:11-12, 22; 7:2, 19-21, 25- information, the release of to Show Cause 26; 8:3, 11, 14, 23; 9:7. which would cause a party [16] competitive harm. [18] 100-4 Exhibit 1 to Google’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing 19 Supplemental Reply 4:7. confidential business in Support of information, the release of 20 its Motion for a which would cause a party Preliminary competitive harm. 21 Injunction [22] 100-4 Exhibit 4 to Google’s Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing 23 Supplemental Reply 3:2, 10-11, 25; 4:12, 22; confidential business in Support of 5:2, 4, 6, 10, 15; 10:9, 19, information, the release of [24] its Motion for a 23. which would cause a party 25 Preliminary competitive harm. Injunction [27] I 100-4 Exhibit 10 to Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing Google’s 4:13; 7:2-3, 21; 8:17; confidential business 2 Supplemental Reply □ 9:1-2, 4; 10:3; 13:1, 4, 9, information, the release of in Support of 15-19; 14:9-10, 12, 14-15, |which would cause a party 3 its Motion for a 18-20, 24. competitive harm. Preliminary 4 Injunction 5 100-4 Exhibit 35 to Highlighted portions at GRANTED as containing Google’s 2:5, 11-13, 23-25. confidential business 6 Supplemental Reply information, the release of 4 in Support of Which would cause a party its Motion for a competitive harm. 8 Preliminary Injunction [9] 10 Il. ORDER 11 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. Point Financial, Inc.’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s 13 Material Should Be Sealed, Dkt. No. 82, is DENIED AS MOOT; and 14 2. Google LLC’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, Dkt. No. 100, is GRANTED. [15] 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. = 17 18 || Dated: August 18, 2025 ETH LABSON FREEMAN 20 United States District Judge