In re Google Assistant Privacy Litigation

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
IN RE GOOGLE ASSISTANT PRIVACY
LITIGATION Case No. 5:19-cv-04286-BLF
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
SEAL
[Re: ECF. No. 550]
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to Seal filed in connection with
Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. ECF No. 550
(“Mot.”). The sealing motion is unopposed. For the reasons described below, Plaintiffs’
Administrative Motion is GRANTED.
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
Case 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 552 Filed 02/06/26 Page 1 of 3

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
Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a
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
Plaintiffs have filed this administrative motion to seal the Termination Threshold stated in
the Settlement Agreement, which was filed in connection with Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (“Preliminary Approval Motion”). Mot. at 1.
Because the Termination Threshold reveals the threshold number of opt-out exclusions necessary
to terminate the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs argue that, if made public, third parties may use
that figure to “obstruct the Settlement.” Id. at 2.
As the sealing request relates to a motion for preliminary approval of a class action
settlement, 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 there are compelling reasons to keep the opt-out threshold
number confidential in order to prevent third parties from using it for the improper purpose of
obstructing the settlement and obtaining higher payouts. In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig.,
No. 15-md-02617-LHK, 2017 WL 9614789, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2017); see also In re
Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934, 948 (9th Cir. 2015). The Court also finds that
the request is narrowly tailored. See Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(3).
Case 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 552 Filed 02/06/26 Page 2 of 3

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
The Court’s ruling is summarized below:
Public
ECF. No. /
Sealed
ECF. No.
Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling
ECF No.
549-2 /
ECF
No. 550-3
Class Action
Settlement
Agreement
Redacted words in ¶11.4 GRANTED
III. ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Administrative
Motion to Seal, ECF No. 550, is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 6, 2026
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
Case 5:19-cv-04286-BLF Document 552 Filed 02/06/26 Page 3 of 3