Space Data Corporation v. Alphabet Inc.,Google LLC, and Loon LLC, No. 5:2016cv03260 - Document 641 (N.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING 639 JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 8/1/2019.(blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/1/2019)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 SPACE DATA CORPORATION, Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 ALPHABET INC., et al., Defendants. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 16-cv-03260-BLF ORDER GRANTING JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL [Re: ECF 639] 12 13 Before the Court is the parties’ joint administrative motion to file under seal portions of the 14 pretrial conference transcript (ECF 621), the Court’s order re motions in limine (ECF 625), and 15 the Court’s order re motion to quash (ECF 627). ECF 639. For the reasons stated below, the 16 motion is GRANTED. 17 18 I. LEGAL STANDARD “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 19 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of 20 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 21 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 22 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 23 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 24 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 25 of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 26 access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 27 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. 28 Parties moving to seal documents must also comply with the procedures established by United States District Court Northern District of California 1 Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request 2 that establishes the document is “sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or 3 otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek 4 sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). 5 In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly 6 tailored to seal only the sealable material” which “lists in table format each document or portion 7 thereof that is sought to be sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unredacted version of the 8 document” that indicates “by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that 9 have been omitted from the redacted version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). “Within 4 days of the 10 filing of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a 11 declaration as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material 12 is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). 13 14 II. DISCUSSION The Court has reviewed the parties’ sealing motion and the declarations of the designating 15 parties submitted in support thereof. The Court finds that the parties have articulated compelling 16 reasons to seal certain portions of the submitted documents. The proposed redactions are narrowly 17 tailored. The Court’s rulings on the sealing requests are set forth in the table below: 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 2 3 4 5 ECF Document Portion(s) to Seal 621 July 19, 2019 Pretrial Conference Transcript Google: 68:12-13 (between “mentioned” and “in fact”); 84:1 (entire line); 85:18-19 (between “example” and “what”); Result Reason(s) for Sealing GRANTED. Contains information related to confidential internal business documents, finances, and valuations. Henry Decl. ¶ 4, ECF 639-1. Public disclosure of this information would cause harm to Defendants. Id. 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 93:18-22 (between “in” and end of paragraph); 94:7 (between “of the” and “that”); 94:13 (between “this” and “to”); 94:17-20 (entire lines); 94:21-22 (between “about” and “that’s”); 95:2 (start to “what); 95:3-6 (“accomplish” to end of paragraph); 95:19 (between “this” and “and”); 95:21 (start to “and”); 96:6-7 (“by” to end of paragraph); 96:12 (between “this” and “which”); 96:13 (start to “which”); 97:13-14 (between “that” and “and”); 97:21-22 (last sentence of paragraph) Space Data: 67:20-21 (dollar amounts) 68:5 (dollar amounts) 74:5 (dollar amounts) 79:18 (between “worth” and “that”) 87:25 (between “for” and “which”) 28 3 Contains Google’s confidential business strategy and references to confidential projects. Henry Decl. ¶ 5. Public disclosure of this information could expose Google to competitive harm by third parties and impair Google’s business development efforts. Id. Substantially similar information was previously redacted by the Court (ECF 617 at 2). GRANTED. This information reveals confidential financial information pertaining to the costs of researching and developing Space Data’s balloon constellation technology. See Germinario Decl. ¶ 6, 1 ECF Document Portion(s) to Seal Reason(s) for Sealing ECF 639-2. Similar cost information was sealed by the Court in ECF 543. 2 3 4 Public disclosure of the information Space Data requests be sealed would likely place Space Data at a competitive disadvantage, and risks grave economic harm. See Germinario Decl. ¶ 7. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Result 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ECF Document 625 July 23, 2019 Order re Motions in Limine Portion(s) to Seal Result Reason(s) for Sealing Google: 3:19 (between “a” and GRANTED. “to Google’s”); 3:25 (between “a” and “too Google’s”); 3:26 (between “that” and “constitutes”); 4:7-8 (between “to” and “Space Data”; 4:8-9 (between “fact that” and “See”; 4:21 (between “respect to” and “— Google”); 4:22 (between “that” and “evidence”) Contains information related to Google’s confidential access logs. Henry Decl. ¶ 6. Public disclosure of this information would cause harm to Defendants. Id. Substantially similar information was previously redacted by the Court. ECF 617 at 2. 8:12 (name of project); 8:13-15 (between “evidence that” and See MIL4”; 8:16 (between “Google’s” and ellipses); 8:17 (between “evidence that” and “relates”); 8:21 (content of brackets); 8:25-26 (between “Google’s” and “wholly”); 8:27 (between “concerning” and “that relates”); 9:34 (between “explaining its” and end of sentence); 9:6 (between “Google’s” and “including”) 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 Contains Google’s confidential business strategy and references to confidential projects. Henry Decl. ¶ 7. Public disclosure of this information could expose Google to competitive harm by third parties and impair Google’s business development efforts. Id. Substantially similar information was previously redacted by the Court. ECF 617 at 2. 1 2 ECF Document Portion(s) to Seal Space Data: 7:12-13 (dollar amount) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 GRANTED. Reason(s) for Sealing This information reveals confidential financial information pertaining to the costs of researching and developing Space Data’s balloon constellation technology. See Germinario Decl. ¶ 6. Similar cost information was sealed by the Court in ECF 543. Public disclosure of the information Space Data requests be sealed would likely place Space Data at a competitive disadvantage, and risks grave economic harm. See Germinario Decl. ¶ 7. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Result 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 1 ECF Document Portion(s) to Seal 627 July 23, 2019 Order re Motion to Quash Google: 2:24-25 (between “involvement in” and “See”; 3:24 (between “Mr. Page” and “and if so”; 4:2 (start to “and that”); 4:4-5 (between “Mr. Page” and “is in dispute”); 4:6-7 (quoted language); 4:8-9 (quoted language) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 Result Reason(s) for Sealing GRANTED. Contains confidential details related to Google’s internal business operations, including how it evaluates potential ventures and partnerships and internal work processes. Henry Decl. ¶ 8. Public disclosure of this information would cause harm to Defendants. Id. Substantially similar information was previously redacted by the Court. ECF 630 at 3. 14 15 III. ORDER 16 For the foregoing reasons, the joint sealing motion at ECF 639 is GRANTED. The parties 17 are instructed to file the appropriately redacted versions of the documents on the public docket on 18 or before August 12, 2019. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 23 24 Dated: August 1, 2019 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 25 26 27 28 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
