Background
Shiran Zikri filed a proposed class action against Google LLC in 2021. The proceeding ended in May 2025 when the Central District Court approved a settlement. Nearly a year later, attorney Amit Zilberg, who had not been a party, sought access to the case file. He explained that prospective clients had approached his firm with claims resembling those asserted in the class action and that reviewing prior proceedings against Google would help him evaluate and prepare possible litigation.
Google opposed the request, characterizing it as an abusive fishing expedition. It argued that Zilberg had filed approximately 20 substantially identical access requests, had not identified his clients, and had offered only generalized reasons for examining the file. Google also maintained that the record contained trade secrets. The District Court granted access through the Net HaMishpat electronic system for 30 days, while protecting confidential materials that had not been scanned into the accessible file. Google sought leave to appeal.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Ofer Grosskopf granted leave to appeal because lower courts had issued conflicting decisions on similar requests, but dismissed Google’s appeal on the merits. Under Regulation 4 of the Court and Labor Court Files (Inspection) Regulations, 2003, courts first ask whether access is legally prohibited, then whether the applicant has provided a justification, and finally how access can be structured to minimize harm to litigants, third parties, and the public. Because open justice is the governing principle, an applicant’s burden is “light and limited,” while a party opposing access must identify a concrete, substantial, and weighty reason for restricting it.
The Court held that access should be especially broad in class actions. Such proceedings affect absent class members, permit participation by public bodies and other interested persons, frequently concern issues of public importance, and are subject to statutory mechanisms intended to prevent duplicative litigation. Accordingly, access to class-action files should be granted routinely in the overwhelming majority of cases unless a specific and weighty countervailing interest justifies a complete or partial restriction.
Zilberg’s explanation—that he was evaluating possible class litigation against Google—cleared the minimal threshold. He was not required to disclose his clients’ identities, list every other file he wished to inspect, or explain precisely how the material would assist another proceeding. Reviewing prior class actions against the same defendant or concerning similar issues is legitimate and should be encouraged because it can improve representation and prevent unnecessary litigation. Google’s only valid concern involved confidential documents, and the District Court’s method of access adequately protected them. Its brief reasoning was sufficient in these circumstances.
Key Takeaways
- Access to Israeli class-action files should ordinarily be granted as a routine matter, subject to any legal prohibition or concrete, weighty countervailing interest.
- An attorney investigating potential class litigation may inspect related proceedings without identifying prospective clients or providing a detailed account of how each document will be used.
- Confidentiality and trade-secret concerns generally support targeted limits on access, rather than wholesale denial of an inspection request.
Why It Matters
The decision resolves conflicting lower-court approaches and establishes a strongly access-favorable rule for class-action records. It recognizes that meaningful transparency in representative litigation extends beyond formal publication of class-action filings and settlements to the pleadings and other materials needed to understand how a case was litigated.
The ruling also signals that defendants should focus objections on particular protected documents instead of opposing access categorically. The Court ordered Google to pay NIS 5,000 in costs, noting that the appeal had delayed Zilberg’s exercise of his inspection right.