when considering a 17 request to seal, “we start with a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.”
How later courts described this case
- when considering a 17 request to seal, “we start with a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5 MAXIMILIAN KLEIN, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD
6 Plaintiffs,
ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL
v.
7
8 META PLATFORMS, INC.,
Defendant.
9
10
11 The Court has addressed the standards for sealing requests in conjunction with case filings,
12 see In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation, 556 F. Supp. 3d 1106 (N.D. Cal. 2021), and that
13 decision is incorporated here. In pertinent summary, “judicial records are public documents
14 almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by default.” Id. at 1107 (quoting
15 Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Center
16 for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (when considering a
17 request to seal, “we start with a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.”)
18 (quotation omitted)). The party seeking to seal a document bears the burden of articulating
19 “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of
20 access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. (quotation and citation omitted). General
21 assertions of potential competitive or commercial harm are not enough to establish good cause for
22 sealing court records, and the “fact that the parties may have designated a document as
23 confidential under a stipulated protective order is also not enough to justify sealing.” Id. (citation
24 omitted).
25 Plaintiffs and defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. (Meta), filed sealing motions in connection
26 with the first amended consolidated advertiser class action complaint (FAC), Dkt. No. 236, motion
27 to dismiss briefing, Dkt. Nos. 261, 270, 284, and discovery letter briefs, Dkt. Nos. 280, 323. As
1 obtained during discovery that had been designated as confidential under the protective order
2 entered in this case. See Dkt. No. 236-1; Dkt. No. 270-1; Dkt. No. 280-1; Dkt. No. 323-1. Civil
3 Local Rule 79-5 required Meta , the party that produced the documents, to state why they should
4 || be sealed, and propose ways of tailoring sealing to the narrowest possible scope. Meta filed
5 declarations to state why the documents it produced should be sealed. See Dkt. No. 244; Dkt. No.
6 278; Dkt. No. 284; Dkt. No. 285; Dkt. No. 326.
7 For Meta’s proposed redactions in the FAC and motion to dismiss briefing, Meta says that
8 information disclosed in the documents should be redacted because it contains details about
9 contract terms and negotiations, and their disclosure would put Meta and its counterparties at a
10 || competitive disadvantage. Dkt. No. 244-1; Dkt. No. 284-1. Meta has met its burden for a small
11 subset of the information it seeks to redact, and the specific sealing determinations are stated in the
12 || attached chart. See Ex. A. The Court grants sealing for portions that expressly quote contract
5 13 terms. The Court declines to redact general descriptions of the agreement that the parties to a
14 || contract reached.
3 15 For the proposed redactions to the discovery letter briefs, Meta seeks to redact only non-
16 || officer employee names and email addresses. Dkt. No. 326. Meta says that disclosure of the
3 17 information would be an invasion of privacy for the individual employees. Jd. The redactions of
18 || email addresses are narrowly tailored and meet the standard for sealing.
19 The “default posture of public access prevails” for the documents that the Court declines to
20 seal. In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation, 556 F. Supp. 3d at 1107 (quoting Kamakana,
21 447 F.3d at 1182). Plaintiffs and Meta are directed to file a revised redacted version of the FAC
22 and discovery letter briefs, and unredacted versions of the motion to dismiss briefing on ECF
23 within seven court days of this order. Civil L.R. 79-5(f).
24 IT IS SO ORDERED.
25 Dated: August 31, 2022
26
7 JAMES JPONATO-
United Jtates District Judge
28
1 EXHIBIT A TO ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL
2 Document Information sought Proffered Reason for Ruling
to be sealed Sealing
3
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
4
First Paragraphs 441-452, Contains non-public Granted in part. The
5
Amended 454, 455, 458-61, 463 information about language in paragraphs
Complaint negotiations of a 441, 449, 451-452, 458
6
confidential agreement may be sealed because it
7 concerning Meta’s reveals specific terms for
non-use of certain negotiation, which would
8 data. Disclosure potentially harm Meta’s
would adversely competitive standing.
9
impact Meta’s ability Denied for paragraphs 442-
10 to negotiate similar 448, 450, 454, 455, 459-
agreements in the 461, 463.
11 future. (See Dkt. No.
244-1 ¶ 6)
12
First Table of Contents, Contains non-public Granted in part. The
13 Amended Paragraphs 10, 436- information about language in paragraphs
Complaint 438, 464-472 terms of a confidential 464-468 may be sealed
14
agreement concerning because it reveals specific
15 Meta’s non-use of terms in a contract, which
certain data. would which would
16 Disclosure would potentially harm Meta’s
adversely impact Meta competitive standing.
17 and the counterparty’s Denied for Table of
ability to negotiate contents and paragraphs 10,
18
similar agreements in 436-438, and 469-472.
19 the future. (See Dkt.
No. 244-1 ¶ 7)
20
First Paragraphs 9, 500-502, Contains non-public Granted in part. The
21 Amended 509-524, 530, 531, information about the language in paragraph 510
Complaint 534, 535 terms of confidential may be sealed because it
22
agreements concerning reveals specific terms in a
23 Meta’s use of data to contract, which would
inform content potentially harm Meta’s
24 development competitive standing.
decisions. Disclosure Denied for paragraphs 9,
25 would impact Meta’s 500-502, 509, 511-524,
ability to negotiate 530, 531, 534, 535.
26
future agreements.
27 (See Dkt. No. 244-1
¶ 8)
1 Document Information sought Proffered Reason for Ruling
to be sealed Sealing
2
First Paragraphs 440, 456, Contains non-public Denied.
3 Amended 463, 485, 486, 503 information about
Complaint advertising sales,
4
including information
5 about advertising
revenues. Disclosure
6 could create a
competitive
7 disadvantage for Meta.
(See Dkt. No. 244-1
8
¶ 9)
9
MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING
10
Meta’s 11:8-9 Contains non-public Denied.
11 Motion to information about
Dismiss, Dkt. terms of a confidential
12 No. 262 agreement concerning
Meta’s non-use of
13 certain data and use of
other data to inform
14
content development
15 decisions. Disclosure
could create a
16 competitive
disadvantage for Meta
17
and its counterparty in
18 negotiations. (See
Dkt. No. 284-1 ¶¶ 6-7)
19
Advertiser 5:10-12, 6:16-19, Contains non-public Denied.
20 Plaintiffs’ 12:21-24 information about
Opposition to terms of a confidential
21 Meta’s agreement concerning
Motion to Meta’s non-use of
22
Dismiss, Dkt. certain data and use of
23 No. 271 other data to inform
content development
24 decisions. Disclosure
could create a
25 competitive
disadvantage for Meta
26
and its counterparty in
27 negotiations. (See
Dkt. No. 284-1 ¶¶ 6-7)
1 Document Information sought Proffered Reason for Ruling
to be sealed Sealing
2
DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEFS
3
Discovery Materials were Denied.
4 Letter Brief, redacted because they
April 21, were marked as
5
2022, Dkt. “Confidential,” or
6 No. 281 “Highly Confidential,”
during production, but
7 Meta represents that it
does not seek for any
8 portions of the
document to be sealed.
9
(See Dkt. No. 280-1
10 ¶ 3; Dkt. No. 285)
11 Discovery Redacted current and Employee names and Granted in part. There is
Letter Brief, former non-officer email addresses should a sufficient privacy interest
12 July 27, 2022, employee names and be redacted to protect in keeping the email
Dkt. No. 322 email addresses on the individuals’ addresses of employees
13 page 2. privacy. (See Dkt. No. redacted, but their names
326) will not be redacted.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27