Rodriguez v. Google LLC
3:20-cv-04688
| N.D. Cal. | Aug 18, 2025Background
- Ongoing litigation between plaintiffs led by Anibal Rodriguez and Google LLC in the Northern District of California.
- Multiple motions to seal various documents and exhibits related to trial preparation were pending before the court.
- The case involves both parties seeking to protect personal information and potentially confidential business materials.
- Court must balance public access to judicial records with privacy and confidentiality interests.
- Some materials are directly related to potential trial evidence, while others are personal information or less relevant documents.
- The court applies both the "good cause" and "compelling reason" standards for sealing, depending on the connection to the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sealing Rule 26 disclosures with personal info | Plaintiffs seek to protect privacy of addresses and phone numbers | No opposition noted from Google | Motion granted; personal info sealed |
| Sealing class member exclusion requests | Plaintiffs seek to shield personal info of class members opting out | No opposition noted from Google | Motion granted |
| Sealing briefing/exhibits with trial relevance | Sought to keep sensitive material sealed | Google explains reasons for sealing; some may be trial evidence | Preliminary denial; to be unsealed if used as evidence |
| Sealing Google’s exhibits in limine | Not directly addressed | Google seeks to seal, but only personal info justified | Personal emails may remain sealed; rest status depends on trial use |
| Sealing plaintiff-designated confidential material | None (P failed to respond) | Google argues no compelling reason to seal | Motion denied; materials to be filed publicly |
| Sealing additional materials with email/code names | Not directly addressed | Google requests emails & code names be sealed; remainder to follow evidence rule | Only emails/code names sealed; rest unsealed if used as evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2011) (establishes strong presumption of public access to judicial records)
- Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (recognizes the public's right to inspect and copy judicial records)
- Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (sets forth the compelling reason standard for sealing documents related to merits)
- Valley Broad. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court—D. Nev., 798 F.2d 1289 (9th Cir. 1986) (public understanding of judicial process as a rationale for access)