Garvey et al v. Kissmetrics et al

Filing 184

ORDER allowing further sealing of exhibits (per ECF Nos. 180-183) (Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 2/1/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco Division
IN RE HULU PRIVACY LITIGATION

No. C 11-03764 LB

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

ORDER RE: SUPPLEMENTAL
DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT OF
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE
UNDER SEAL

13
14
____________________________________/
15
16

INTRODUCTION

17

This order addresses the remaining sealing issues. The legal standards are in the prior order.

18

ANALYSIS

19

I. HULU’S SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION

20

First, Exhibit 4 has two parts that Hulu wants sealed. For the reasons Hulu identifies, the partial

21

redaction to RFA 7 is fine, and the exhibit may be filed under seal. As to RFA 54, Hulu says that it

22

contains “information that is not public and is commercially sensitive to Hulu. It reveals details of

23

Hulu’s confidential business strategy.” Id. The court denies the motion. This information is what is

24

at issue in this privacy class action. There is a public interest in knowing it. The court cannot see

25

how it reveals business strategy or commercially-sensitive information. It seems pretty obvious

26

from Hulu’s business model that the information is so.

27

Second, Hulu asks the court to allow a narrowly-redacted version of Exhibit 7, the deposition

28

transcript of Hulu’s 30(b)(6) witness, Richard Tom, with information about the website design. The

ORDER (C 11-03764 LB)

1

court grants the motion with respect to Exhibit 7.

2

Third, Hulu asks to entirely seal Exhibit 20 to the Carpenter Declaration on the ground that it

3

“describes Hulu’s business relationship with Facebook and the parties’ confidential business and

4

legal strategy around the Facebook ‘Like’ button.” ECF No. 181, ¶ 6. The court grants the motion

5

to seal.

6
7
8
9

Fourth, the court grants the motion with respect to Exhibit 9.
II. PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION
As to the personal information about the relationship to the attorney, it may be personal, it may
be of limited relevance, and it is not seem sealable under the court’s local rule or the cases, which

information. The court grants the motion for everything else, including the fiancee’s name, the

12
For the Northern District of California

involve sealing presentence investigations, the identifies of cooperating inmates, and medical

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

pseudonym, the cookies, the videos, and the consumers in Exhibit 23.
CONCLUSION

13
14

The parties may file the additional information under seal to the extent authorized by this order.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated: February 1, 2014

17

_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER (C 11-03764 LB)

2