(Bing Clip Art via Barry Law School)
Neither Defendant Google's "internal practices" or a stipulated protective order furnished the necessary statement of compelling reasons to support sealing Google's "internal business documents" in In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation.[1]
Google's "strict" internal policy of keeping such documents secret was of no avail, because "permitting sealing on the basis of a party's internal practices would leave the fox guarding the hen house."[2]
Similarly, the parties' stipulated protective order did not fuel Google's search for secrecy in this case: "The parties cannot curtail public access by agreement."[3]
[1] In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litig., No. 21-md-02981-JD, 2021 WL 4305017 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2021).
[2] Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation, 2021 WL 4305017, at *1.
[3] Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation, 2021 WL 4305017, at *1.
Secrecy, stipulated protective orders, and the requirements of sealing and unsealing in litigation are disclosed in 1 DENNIS J. WALL, LITIGATION AND PREVENTION OF INSURER BAD FAITH § 3:107.50 (West Publishing Company 3d Edition, 2023 Supplements in process).
Please read the disclaimer. This blog article ©2023 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved.
Comments