Google LLC v. Point Financial, Inc.

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
GOOGLE LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
POINT FINANCIAL, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-cv-04033-BLF
ORDER REGARDING
ADMINISTRATIVE SEALING
MOTIONS
[Re: ECF Nos. 151, 156]
Before the Court are two administrative motions:
(1) Point Financial, Inc.’s (“PFI”) Administrative Motion to Consider Whether PFI’s
Response to Google LLC’s (“Google”) Emergency Motion to Enforce the Preliminary
Injunction and for Contempt Sanctions Should be Sealed. ECF No. 151.
(2) Google’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether PFI’s Material Should be
Sealed. ECF No. 156.
For the reasons that follow, the administrative motion at ECF No. 151 is GRANTED as narrowed
by Google, and the administrative motion at ECF No. 156 is GRANTED to the extent redactions
are requested by Google.
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
Case 5:25-cv-04033-BLF Document 170 Filed 02/09/26 Page 1 of 6

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
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
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).
Further, when a party seeks to seal a document because it has been designated as
confidential by another party, the filing party must file an Administrative Motion to Consider
Whether Another Party’s Material Should be Sealed. Civil L.R. 79-5(f). In that case, the filing
party need not satisfy the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civil L.R. 79-5(f)(1). Instead, the
party who designated the material as confidential must, within seven days of the motion’s filing,
file a statement and/or declaration that meets the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civil L.R. 79-
5(f)(3). A designating party’s failure to file a statement or declaration may result in the unsealing
of the provisionally sealed document without further notice to the designating party. Id. Any
party can file a response to that declaration within four days. Civil L.R. 79-5(f)(4).
II. ECF NO. 151
PFI has filed an administrative motion to consider whether PFI’s Response to Google’s
Emergency Motion to Enforce the Preliminary Injunction and for Contempt Sanctions should be
sealed. ECF No. 151. Google filed a statement in support of sealing, which requests narrower
redactions than those identified by PFI. ECF No. 153. PFI does not oppose Google’s request.
Google requests to seal material pertaining to the “identity of one of the Vendors that
manufacture, test, and assemble the chip at issue in this litigation.” ECF No. 153 at 3. Google
Case 5:25-cv-04033-BLF Document 170 Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 6

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
argues that the public disclosure of the identity of this vendor would give Google’s competitors
and potential contracting partners unfair leverage in the marketplace. Id.
As the sealing request relates to a response to a motion to enforce the preliminary
injunction and for contempt sanctions, 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 compelling reasons exist to seal the
materials Google identifies, because the “compelling reasons” standard is met for confidential
business information that would harm a party’s competitive standing if publicly disclosed. See
Music Grp. Macao Com. Offshore Ltd. v. Foote, No. 14-cv-03078, 2015 WL 3993147, at *6
(N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015); Jam Cellars, Inc. v. Wine Grp. LLC, No. 19-cv-01878, 2020 WL
5576346, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2020) (finding compelling reasons for sealing “confidential
business and proprietary information”); Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 17-cv-00220,
2019 WL 95922, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019) (finding compelling reasons for sealing
“information that, if published, may harm . . . competitive standing and divulges terms of
confidential contracts, contract negotiations, or trade secrets”); In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x
568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding sealable “business information that might harm a litigant’s
competitive standing”). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. See Civil L.R.
79-5(c)(3).
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
Case 5:25-cv-04033-BLF Document 170 Filed 02/09/26 Page 3 of 6

4
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.
150 / ECF
No. 154
Point Financial, Inc.’s
Response to Google
LLC’s Emergency
Motion to Enforce the
Preliminary
Injunction and for
Contempt Sanctions
Highlighted portions at
2:15; 3:9-10, 20; 6:4, 8, 10,
13-14.
GRANTED as containing
confidential business
information, the release of
which could cause Google
harm.
ECF No.
150-2 /
ECF
No. 154
Ex. 2
Exhibit 2 to Point
Financial, Inc.’s
Response to Google
LLC’s Emergency
Motion to Enforce the
Preliminary
Injunction and for
Contempt Sanctions
Highlighted portions at 1:9,
30; 2:26, 29, 31.
GRANTED as containing
confidential business
information, the release of
which could cause Google
harm.
III. ECF NO. 156
Google has filed an administrative motion to consider whether Exhibit A to its Reply in
Support of Its Motion to Enforce the Preliminary Injunction and for Contempt Sanctions Against
PFI or portions thereof should be sealed. ECF No. 156. Google seeks redactions to the document.
Id. PFI does not request any redactions and does not oppose Google’s sealing requests. ECF
No. 160.
Google separates its sealing requests into two categories. The first is a single term from
Amendment 2 to the Statement of Work, which is “marked confidential” and “maintained
confidential” in the “ordinary course of business.” ECF No. 156 at 3. Google argues that the
disclosure of this information would expose Google’s “strategic decision-making with respect to
the terms offered to its contracting partners” and, in turn, harm its competitive advantage. Id. The
second category of information Google seeks to seal is the “identity of one of the Vendors that
manufacture, test, and assemble the chip at issue in this litigation.” Id. Google argues that the
public disclosure of the identity of this vendor would give Google’s competitors and potential
Case 5:25-cv-04033-BLF Document 170 Filed 02/09/26 Page 4 of 6

5
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
contracting partners unfair leverage in the marketplace. Id.
As the sealing request relates to a reply in support of a motion to enforce the preliminary
injunction and for contempt sanctions, 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 compelling reasons exist to seal the
materials Google identifies, because the “compelling reasons” standard is met for confidential
business information that would harm a party’s competitive standing if publicly disclosed. See
Music Grp. Macao Com. Offshore Ltd. v. Foote, No. 14-cv-03078, 2015 WL 3993147, at *6 (N.D.
Cal. June 30, 2015); Jam Cellars, Inc. v. Wine Grp. LLC, No. 19-cv-01878, 2020 WL 5576346, at
*2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2020) (finding compelling reasons for sealing “confidential business and
proprietary information”); Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 17-cv-00220, 2019 WL
95922, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019) (finding compelling reasons for sealing “information that, if
published, may harm . . . competitive standing and divulges terms of confidential contracts,
contract negotiations, or trade secrets”); In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir.
2008) (finding sealable “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing”).
The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. See Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(3).
The Court’s ruling is summarized below:
Public
ECF. No. /
Sealed
ECF. No.
Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling
ECF No.
155-1/ ECF
No. 156-3
Exhibit A to Google
LLC’s Reply in
Support of Its
Emergency Motion to
Enforce the
Preliminary
Injunction and for
Contempt Sanctions
against Point
Financial, Inc.
Highlighted portions at
103:2, 20; 105:25; 106:9,
15; 107:19; 108:9; 110:7, 9,
20; 111:9; 116:3; 117:20.
GRANTED as containing
confidential business
information, the release of
which could cause Google
harm.
Remainder of the document. DENIED, because no party
requests sealing.
Case 5:25-cv-04033-BLF Document 170 Filed 02/09/26 Page 5 of 6

6
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
IV. ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1) PFI’s Administrative Motion, ECF No. 151, is GRANTED as narrowed by Google.
(2) Google’s Administrative Motion, ECF No. 156, is GRANTED to the extent redactions
are requested by Google. The motion is otherwise DENIED.
The parties SHALL refile public versions of each filing where the redactions and sealing granted
by the Court are narrower than what was redacted in the current public versions on or before
February 19, 2026.
Dated: February 9, 2026
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-04033-BLF Document 170 Filed 02/09/26 Page 6 of 6