Nunes v. Twitter, Inc.

Filing 90

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Vince Chhabria on 5/24/2016. (knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/24/2016)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BEVERLY NUNES,

Case No. 14-cv-02843-VC

Plaintiff,
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS
TO FILE UNDER SEAL

v.
TWITTER, INC.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 71, 74, 87, 88

Defendant.

Nunes moved to file under seal various portions of her motion for partial summary
judgment; Exhibits 3, 11, 18, 19, 20, 24, and 26 to the Declaration of Bryan G. Kolton in support
of her motion; and portions of plaintiff's supplemental declaration in support of her motion. See
Dkt. No. 74. As the designating party pursuant to Local Rule 79-5(e), Twitter filed declarations
in support of sealing some of the materials identified in Nunes' motion. See Dkt. Nos. 78, 79.
As a result of a clerical error, the Court filed an order granting Twitter's request. See Dkt. No.
80. Given the clerical error, Nunes' motion to remove the incorrectly filed documents referenced
in Dkt. No. 77 is now granted. The motion to file under seal is granted in part and denied in part.
To the extent Nunes seeks to file under seal any portions of her motion or associated
documents that include her personal telephone number, the motion is granted.
To the extent Twitter seeks to keep under seal portions of Exhibits 3 and 24 that contain
identifying (or potentially identifying) information for Twitter users, including their cell phone
numbers, and unique identifying numbers for their Twitter accounts and mobile devices, the
motion is granted.
In response to Nunes' motion, Twitter does not request that Exhibit 26 remain under seal.

Therefore, the motion to file Exhibit 26 under seal is denied.
Twitter also contends portions of Exhibits 11, 18, 19, and 20 should remain under seal
because they contain trade secrets. But Twitter offers only generic descriptions of the material,
and conclusory statements that "disclosure of this information is liable to cause Twitter
competitive harm" to support its request. Decl. of Don Hoffman in Supp. of Administrative Mot.
to File Under Seal, at ¶¶ 6, 7, 8. In light of Twitter's scant showing, the Court is tentatively of
the view that this material should not be filed under seal. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler
Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016); In re Hewlett-Packard Co. S'holder Derivative
Litig., No. 12-cv-06003-CRB, Dkt. No. 411 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2015). If Twitter wishes to keep
this material under seal, it may file a supplemental brief, not to exceed 5 pages, by Friday, May
27, 2016, explaining why it believes there are compelling reasons to justify concealing this
material from the public.
In light of the clerical error discussed above (and the Court's resolution of the motion to
file under seal as to Exhibit 26), Nunes' motion for administrative relief concerning Exhibit 26,
see Dkt. No. 88, is moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 24, 2016
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

2