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 MOTIONS TO
SEAL
[Re: ECF Nos. 210, 350, 359, 362, 365]
Before the Court are five administrative motions:
1. Point Financial, Inc.’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Certain Exhibits to
Point Financial, Inc.’s Response in Opposition to Google, LLC’s Administrative
Motion to Seal Should Be Sealed. ECF No. 210.
2. Google LLC’s Administrative Motion for Further Redactions. ECF No. 350.
3. Google LLC’S Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. ECF No. 359.
4. Point Financial, Inc’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Its Reply in Support
of Motion for Reconsideration and Supporting Exhibit Should Be Sealed. ECF No.
362.
5. Google LLC’s Administrative Motion for Further Redactions. ECF No. 365.
For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS the motions to seal.
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
Case 5:25-cv-04033-BLF Document 372 Filed 10/07/26 Page 1 of 11

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
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.
Conversely, under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 26(c), parties seeking to seal “records
attached to nondispositive motions,” must satisfy the “good cause” standard. Kamakana, 447 F.3d
at 1180. “This ‘good cause’ standard presents a lower burden for the party wishing to seal
documents than the ‘compelling reasons’ standard.” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665,
678 (9th Cir. 2010).
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.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Civil Local Rule 79-5 requires the
moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” Civ. L.R. 79-
5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.”
Civ. 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. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f). In that case, the filing
party need not satisfy the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. 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). Civ. 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. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(4).
Case 5:25-cv-04033-BLF Document 372 Filed 10/07/26 Page 2 of 11

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
II. DISCUSSION
A. ECF No. 210: PFI’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Certain
Exhibits to PFI’s Response in Opposition to Google’s Administrative Motion to Seal Should
Be Sealed
PFI has filed an administrative motion to consider whether Exhibits A and B to PFI’s
Response in Opposition to Google’s Administrative Motions to Seal should be sealed. ECF Nos.
210, 205-1, 205-2. Google has submitted a statement in support of sealing. ECF No. 216. PFI
opposes sealing these exhibits, arguing that they contain only public information that is not subject
to sealing. ECF No. 210 at 2.
In its statement in support of sealing, Google requests that three categories of information
be sealed. The first category concerns “a single term” relating to “Google’s confidential and
proprietary technology.” ECF No. 216 at 3. Google argues that when this term is presented “in
the context of all of the public filings in this Court, it becomes abundantly evident as to the type of
chip being manufactured by Google and the express purpose of that chip.” Id. Google argues that
disclosure of this information would “reveal the confidential and proprietary technology being
employed by Google . . . and weaken the competitive advantage Google maintains in the
marketplace.” Id.
The second category of requests consists of “a direct quote from Amendment 2 to the
Statement of Work, which is marked confidential and maintained confidential by Google.” Id.
Google maintains that the disclosure of this information “would reveal Google’s strategic
decision-making with respect to the terms offered to its contracting partners” and give its
“competitors and potential contracting partners an unfair leverage in competing against or
negotiating with Google.” Id.
The third category of requests comprises “the identity of one of the Vendors that
manufacture, test, and assemble the chip at issue in this litigation.” Id. Google maintains that it
“has a confidential agreement with this Vendor and is obligated to maintain its identity
confidential.” Id. Google argues that revealing “this Vendor’s identity would give Google’s
competitors and potential contracting partners an unfair leverage.” Id.
Case 5:25-cv-04033-BLF Document 372 Filed 10/07/26 Page 3 of 11

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
This sealing request relates to PFI’s exhibits filed alongside PFI’s Response in Opposition
to Google’s Administrative Motions to Seal. The Court finds that Google’s sealing motion is a
nondispositive motion that is not “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause[s] of
action.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099–101. Therefore, the Court will apply the less
exacting “good cause” standard. Id. at 1098. In its response, Google applied the “compelling
reasons” standard, and thus the Court will address that standard here. See ECF No. 216 at 3.
The Court finds that compelling reasons, and thus good cause, exist to seal the materials
Google identifies. First, compelling reasons exist to seal trade secrets. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at
1179; Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc., No. 21-cv-02436, 2023 WL 7678270, at *2 (N.D.
Cal. Nov. 13, 2023). Second, the “compelling reasons” standard is also met for confidential
business information that would harm a party’s competitive standing if publicly disclosed,
including materials discussing “network infrastructure and security systems.” 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 “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 Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). Because Google satisfied the more
stringent “compelling reasons” standard, it necessarily satisfies the lower burden imposed by the
applicable “good cause” standard. See Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678.
The Court’s ruling is summarized below:
Case 5:25-cv-04033-BLF Document 372 Filed 10/07/26 Page 4 of 11

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
Public ECF
No. / Sealed
ECF No.
Document Portion(s) to
Seal Ruling
ECF No.
205-1 /
210-3
Exhibit A to Point
Financial, Inc.’s Response
to Google’s Administrative
Motion
Highlighted
portions at
1:1-3; 6-8.
GRANTED as containing
confidential business
information, the release of which
could cause Google harm.
ECF No.
205-2 / ECF
No. 210-3
Exhibit B to Point
Financial, Inc.’s Response
to Google’s Administrative
Motion
Highlighted
portions at
1:1-3; 11-12.
GRANTED as containing
confidential business
information, the release of which
could cause Google harm.
B. ECF No. 350: Google’s Administrative Motion for Further Redactions
Google also seeks to seal portions of the Transcript of Proceedings that took place before
the Court on June 4, 2026. See ECF Nos. 350, 339.
Google separates its sealing request into three categories. The first category is comprised
of “terms and phrases pertaining to Google’s confidential and proprietary technology at issue in
this litigation.” Id. at 3. Google argues that the disclosure of this information would reveal its
“confidential and proprietary technology” and “weaken the competitive advantage Google
maintains in the marketplace.” Id.
The second category of requests consists of “the terms of Google’s confidential contracts
with third parties regarding Google’s plans to develop, design, and manufacture the chip detailed
in the Complaint.” Id. Google maintains that the disclosure of this information would reveal its
“strategic decision-making with respect to the terms offered to its contracting partners,” thereby
giving “Google’s competitors and potential contracting partners an unfair leverage in competing
against or negotiating with Google.” Id.
The third category of requests comprises “non-public business information pertaining to
Google’s confidential agreements with third parties regarding Google’s plans to develop, design,
and manufacture the chip.” Id. Google argues that public disclosure of this information would
also reveal its “strategic decision-making with respect to its contractual relationships,” thereby
giving “competitors and potential contracting partners an unfair leverage in competing against or
negotiating contractual relationships with Google.” Id. at 3–4. PFI did not file a response to this
motion.
Case 5:25-cv-04033-BLF Document 372 Filed 10/07/26 Page 5 of 11

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
This sealing request relates to the transcript for the hearing regarding Google’s Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment and PFI’s Motion for Summary Judgment. See ECF No. 281. The
Court finds that the subject of this transcript is “more than tangentially related to the underlying
cause[s] of action,” and will therefore 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.
Courts have routinely found that “compelling reasons” exist to seal confidential business
information that would harm a party’s competitive standing if publicly disclosed, including
materials discussing “network infrastructure and security systems.” See Music Grp. Macao, 2015
WL 3993147, at *6; Jam Cellars, Inc., 2020 WL 5576346, at *2 (finding compelling reasons for
sealing “confidential business and proprietary information”); Qualcomm Inc., 2019 WL 95922, at
*3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019) (finding compelling reasons for “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 at 569 (finding sealable “business
information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing”). The Court also finds that the
request is narrowly tailored. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3).
The Court’s ruling is summarized below:
ECF No. Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling
ECF No.
339
Transcript of
Proceedings held on
June 4, 2026
Highlighted portions at
5:5; 8:13; 18:9, 19, 24;
19:1; 24:13; 25:3; 26:25;
27:18-20; 30:4, 6, 13;
42:20; 43:15-16; 44:17,
22; 45:1, 3-4, 7; 53:11;
59:14-15, 24; 60:4, 7-8;
66:14-16; 67:14.
GRANTED as containing
confidential business
information, the release of
which could cause Google
harm.
C. ECF No. 359: Google’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal
Google also seeks to seal portions of Exhibit A to Google’s Response to PFI’s Motion for
Reconsideration of the Unjust Enrichment Claim on Summary Judgment. See ECF Nos. 359, 358-
1. In this motion, Google seeks to seal two of the same categories of information it seeks to seal
in its Administrative Motion for Further Redactions. See id. at 3 (seeking to seal (1) “terms of
Case 5:25-cv-04033-BLF Document 372 Filed 10/07/26 Page 6 of 11

7
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
Google’s confidential contracts with third parties regarding Google’s plans to develop, design, and
manufacture the chip,” and (2) “non-public business information pertaining to Google’s
confidential agreements with third parties regarding Google’s plans to develop, design, and
manufacture the chip detailed in the Complaint”).
Because this sealing request relates to Google’s response to PFI’s Motion for
Reconsideration of the Unjust Enrichment Claim on Summary Judgment, which is “more than
tangentially related to the underlying cause[s] of action,” the Court will apply the “compelling
reasons” standard. Courts have routinely found that “compelling reasons” exist to seal
confidential business information that would harm a party’s competitive standing if publicly
disclosed, including materials discussing “network infrastructure and security systems.” See
Music Grp. Macao, 2015 WL 3993147, at *6; Jam Cellars, Inc., 2020 WL 5576346, at *2 (finding
compelling reasons for sealing “confidential business and proprietary information”); Qualcomm
Inc., 2019 WL 95922, at *3 (finding compelling reasons for “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 at 569 (finding sealable “business
information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing”). The Court also finds that the
request is narrowly tailored. See Civ. 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.
358-1 / 359-3
Exhibit A to Google’s
Response to PFI’s Motion
for Reconsideration of the
Unjust Enrichment Claim
on Summary Judgment
Highlighted
portions at
8:7-8, 16-18, 20.
GRANTED as containing
confidential business
information, the release of which
could cause Google harm.
D. ECF No. 362: PFI’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Its Reply in
Support of Motion for Reconsideration and Supporting Exhibit Should Be Sealed
PFI has filed an administrative motion to consider whether its Reply in Support of Motion
for Reconsideration and Exhibit A to that reply should be sealed. See ECF Nos. 361, 361-1, 362.
Case 5:25-cv-04033-BLF Document 372 Filed 10/07/26 Page 7 of 11

8
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
Google has submitted a statement in support of sealing. ECF No. 368. While PFI “contends none
of these materials warrant sealing,” ECF No. 362 at 2, PFI does not oppose Google’s request.
In its statement in support of sealing, Google seeks to seal three categories of information,
two of which are the same it seeks to seal in its Administrative Motion for Further Redactions.
See ECF No. 368 at 3 (seeking to seal (1) “terms and phrases pertaining to Google’s confidential
and proprietary technology at issue in this litigation,” and (2) “non-public business information
pertaining to Google’s confidential agreements with third parties regarding Google’s plans to
develop, design, and manufacture the chip detailed in the Complaint”).
The final category of information Google seeks to seal is “direct quotes from and close
restatements of the non-standard provisions of Google’s confidential contracts with third parties
regarding Google’s plans to develop, design, and manufacture the chip.” Id. at 3. Google argues
that disclosing this information will reveal “Google’s strategic decision-making” and give
“competitors and potential contracting partners an unfair leverage in competing against or
negotiating with Google.” Id.
Because this sealing request relates to PFI’s Reply in Support of Motion for
Reconsideration and its supporting exhibit, which is “more than tangentially related to the
underlying cause[s] of action,” the Court will apply the “compelling reasons” standard. Courts
have routinely found that “compelling reasons” exist to seal confidential business information that
would harm a party’s competitive standing if publicly disclosed, including materials discussing
“network infrastructure and security systems.” See Music Grp. Macao, 2015 WL 3993147, at *6;
Jam Cellars, Inc., 2020 WL 5576346, at *2 (finding compelling reasons for sealing “confidential
business and proprietary information”); Qualcomm Inc., 2019 WL 95922, at *3 (finding
compelling reasons for “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 at 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
Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3).
The Court’s ruling is summarized below:
Case 5:25-cv-04033-BLF Document 372 Filed 10/07/26 Page 8 of 11

9
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
Public ECF
No. / Sealed
ECF No.
Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling
ECF No.
361/
362-3
PFI’s Reply in
Support of Motion
for Reconsideration
Highlighted portions at
3:11-12, 14.
GRANTED as containing
confidential business
information, the release of which
could cause Google harm.
ECF No.
361-1/
362-4
Exhibit A to PFI’s
Reply in Support of
Motion for
Reconsideration
Highlighted portions at
56:1-7; 12-14.
GRANTED as containing
confidential business
information, the release of which
could cause Google harm.
E. ECF No. 365: Google’s Administrative Motion for Further Redactions
Google also seeks to seal portions of the Transcript of Proceedings that took place before
the Court on August 20, 2026. See ECF Nos. 365, 347.
Google separates its sealing requests into two categories. The first category “is a single
term” relating to “Google’s confidential and proprietary technology.” ECF No. 365 at 3. Google
maintains that if this information is publicly disclosed, it would “weaken the competitive
advantage Google maintains in the marketplace.” Id. at 3.
The second category of requests consists of “the terms of Google’s confidential contracts
with third parties regarding Google’s plans to develop, design, and manufacture the chip detailed
in the Complaint.” Id. Google maintains that the disclosure of this information would reveal its
“strategic decision-making with respect to the terms offered to its contracting partners,” thereby
giving “Google’s competitors and potential contracting partners an unfair leverage in competing
against or negotiating with Google.” Id.
This sealing request relates to the transcript for the hearing on PFI’s Motion to Modify the
Preliminary Injunction. See ECF No. 345. The Court finds that the subject of this transcript is
“more than tangentially related to the underlying cause[s] of action,” and will therefore 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.
Courts have routinely found that “compelling reasons” exist to seal confidential business
information that would harm a party’s competitive standing if publicly disclosed, including
materials discussing “network infrastructure and security systems.” See Music Grp. Macao, 2015
Case 5:25-cv-04033-BLF Document 372 Filed 10/07/26 Page 9 of 11

10
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
WL 3993147, at *6; Jam Cellars, Inc., 2020 WL 5576346, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2020)
(finding compelling reasons for sealing “confidential business and proprietary information”);
Qualcomm Inc., 2019 WL 95922, at *3 (finding compelling reasons for “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 at 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 Civ. 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. 347
/ 365-3
Transcript of
Proceedings held
on August 20,
2026
Highlighted portions at
14:15; 16:25; 24:14-15;
25:10; 26:17
GRANTED as containing
confidential business
information, the release of which
could cause Google harm.
III. DISCUSSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1) Point Financial, Inc’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Certain Exhibits to
Point Financial, Inc.’s Response in Opposition to Google, LLC’s Administrative
Motion to Seal Should Be Sealed, ECF No. 210, is GRANTED to the extent Google
requests redactions. PFI SHALL refile a complete public version of its exhibits on or
before October 20, 2026.
(2) Google LLC’s Administrative Motion for Further Redactions, ECF No. 350, is
GRANTED.
(3) Google LLC’S Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, ECF No. 359, is
GRANTED.
(4) Point Financial, Inc’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Its Reply in Support
of Motion for Reconsideration and Supporting Exhibit Should Be Sealed, ECF No.
362, is GRANTED to the extent Google requests redactions. PFI SHALL refile a
complete public version of its reply brief and accompanying exhibits on or before
October 20, 2026.
Case 5:25-cv-04033-BLF Document 372 Filed 10/07/26 Page 10 of 11

11
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
(5) Google LLC’s Administrative Motion for Further Redactions, ECF No. 365, is
GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 7, 2026
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-04033-BLF Document 372 Filed 10/07/26 Page 11 of 11