Doe v. GoodRx Holdings, Inc. et al

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
JANE DOE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GOODRX HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 23-cv-00501-AMO (ASK)
DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO CLOSE THE
COURTROOM
Re: Dkt. Nos. 296, 298
The court denies Defendants Google LLC and Meta Platforms, Inc.’s (“Defendants”)
Administrative Motion to Close the Courtroom (Dkt. 296). As a threshold matter, the briefing for
the discovery disputes at issue is almost entirely public. Moreover, it is commonplace for cases
involving protected information to be argued in open court. The parties here have sophisticated
counsel who are well aware of their obligations under the protective order and who are able to
refer to protected information without disclosing it. Indeed, that is precisely why the Court
permitted the parties to lodge demonstratives with the Court without filing them publicly.
That said, having reviewed the parties’ submitted demonstratives, and consistent with
Judge Orrick’s order in In re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation, ECF No. 1241 at 2, No. 3:22-cv-
03580 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2025), the Court is not convinced at this stage that sealing is warranted
for the name of a data repository, along with a general description of its purpose, an identification
of what services it is associated with (e.g., YouTube, AdWords, etc.), and/or a general description
of how that repository shares data with other repositories. This is particularly the case when
sensitive technical details are not being revealed, and such details are not material to deciding the
existing discovery disputes. At this point, the Court is not going so far as to unseal the documents
submitted as demonstratives that defendants have designated as confidential under the protective
Case 3:23-cv-00501-AMO Document 299 Filed 04/02/26 Page 1 of 2

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
order—as the revelation of the entirety of those architecture documents may well result in the
disclosure of trade secrets or otherwise result in competitive harm.
The Court believes that within the above contours, a productive public hearing can take
place. If it becomes necessary to seal a portion of the Zoom hearing to deal with particular issues,
the Court will entertain such a request at the hearing. But closing the hearing in its entirety is not
warranted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 2, 2026
AJAY KRISHNAN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:23-cv-00501-AMO Document 299 Filed 04/02/26 Page 2 of 2