Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Before the Court were two administrative motions concerning the sealing of judicial records in this action. Defendants Google LLC filed an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed (ECF No. 176), addressing portions of its Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Court's June 23, 2025 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Intervenor's Motion for Substitution as Plaintiff, Intervention, and Leave to Amend Complaint, together with exhibits to the Declaration of Molly Jennings filed in support of that motion. Google took no position on whether the material should be sealed, but Plaintiffs filed a statement supporting sealing, arguing that the documents contained personally identifiable information such as the names, relationships, and financial details of Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs' family, and non-party witnesses, and that disclosure would place that information in the hands of would-be wrongdoers and increase the risk of impersonation scams.
Plaintiffs also filed their own Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of Plaintiffs' Response to Google's Motion for Partial Reconsideration (ECF No. 186), covering portions of the response and accompanying exhibits to the Declaration of Joseph Guglielmo. Plaintiffs maintained that these documents contained private, personal information about Plaintiffs and their family members and argued that public disclosure would increase their risk of being targeted by impersonation scams. Google did not file a response to Plaintiffs' motion. Both sealing requests related to Google's motion for partial reconsideration of the Court's prior order on substitution, intervention, and leave to amend.
The Court’s Holding
The Court applied the 'compelling reasons' standard to both motions rather than the lower 'good cause' standard, determining that the underlying motion for partial reconsideration was 'more than tangentially related to the underlying cause[s] of action' under Ninth Circuit precedent. The Court found that compelling reasons existed to seal the material Plaintiffs identified, because the Ninth Circuit has found that compelling reasons exist to keep personal information confidential to protect an individual's privacy interest and to prevent exposure to harm or identity theft.
As to ECF No. 176, the Court granted the motion as to the specific portions itemized in its table: highlighted portions of Google's motion for partial reconsideration; the entirety of Exhibit 1 to the Jennings declaration (deposition excerpts of Denver May); highlighted portions of Exhibits 2 and 3 (letters from Robin C. Burrell and Joseph P. Guglielmo); and identified portions of Exhibits 4 and 7 (the Denver May errata sheet and excerpts of the September 16, 2026 deposition of a non-party). Each was granted as containing confidential personal material. The Court ordered that by November 13, 2026, Google shall refile public versions of each filing in which the redactions granted by the Court differ from the redactions in the public versions.
As to ECF No. 186, the Court granted the motion as to the specific portions listed in its second table: highlighted portions of Plaintiffs' response to Google's motion for partial reconsideration; highlighted portions of Exhibits A and B to the Guglielmo declaration; and the entirety of Exhibits C and D. Each was likewise granted as containing confidential personal material.
Key Takeaways
- The Court applied the heightened 'compelling reasons' standard rather than the lower 'good cause' standard because the sealing requests related to a motion for partial reconsideration that was more than tangentially related to the underlying causes of action.
- The protection of personally identifiable information, including names, relationships, and financial details of parties, family members, and non-party witnesses, constitutes a compelling reason to seal judicial records.
- The Court found that preventing exposure to impersonation scams and identity theft is a valid privacy interest that can overcome the strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial records.
- Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(f), when a party seeks to seal material designated confidential by another party, the designating party must file a statement justifying sealing within seven days, which Plaintiffs did here.
- The Court required Google to refile public versions of each affected filing by November 13, 2026, wherever the redactions granted by the Court differ from the redactions in the public versions, ensuring the public record reflects only the specific redactions authorized.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces that even under the stringent compelling-reasons standard, courts in the Northern District of California will seal judicial records containing sensitive personal information to protect against identity theft and privacy invasions. The decision highlights the procedural requirements of Civil Local Rule 79-5, particularly the burden-shifting mechanism that applies when a party seeks to seal material designated confidential by another party.
The ruling also demonstrates that motions for reconsideration, even if procedural in posture, are treated as more than tangentially related to the underlying action, thereby triggering the higher compelling-reasons standard for sealing requests. Parties therefore cannot easily seal documents tied to significant substantive motions without demonstrating substantial privacy or safety risks.