Nunes v. Twitter, Inc.

Filing 97

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Vince Chhabria on 6/29/2016. (knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/29/2016).

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, 90

Defendant.

Nunes moved to file under seal various portions of her partial summary judgment motion
and supporting brief; Exhibits 3, 11, 18, 19, 20, 24, and 26 to the Declaration of Bryan G. Kolton
in support of her motion; and portions of her supplemental declaration in support of her motion.
Dkt. Nos. 71, 74. Previously, the Court granted her motion to file under seal references to her
personal cell phone number, and portions of Exhibits 3 and 24 containing identifying information
for Twitter users. Dkt. No. 90. The Court denied the motion to seal Exhibit 26. Id. The Court
also expressed a tentative view that certain material Twitter claimed contained trade secrets
should not be sealed, but invited Twitter (the designating party under Local Rule 79-5(e)) to
submit a supplemental brief in support of sealing that material. Id. Twitter then filed a
supplemental brief, which significantly narrowed the request to keep under seal information
Twitter considers to be trade secrets in Exhibits 11, 18, 19, and 20. Dkt. No. 91.
As to those portions of Exhibits 11, 18, 19, and 20 to the Kolton Declaration, there are
compelling reasons to seal the material. These documents contain details about the inner
workings of Twitter's proprietary systems (as well as other components of its business), and
revealing this information to the public might harm Twitter's competitive standing. See Ctr. for

Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096–97 (9th Cir. 2016).
In her initial motion to file under seal, as well as in a subsequent administrative motion
concerning her reply brief, Dkt. No. 87, Nunes requested to keep under seal references in her
briefs to various exhibits Twitter had marked as confidential. Twitter has not sought to keep
those references under seal, see Decl. of Don Hoffman in Supp. of Pl.'s Administrative Mot. to
File Under Seal, Dkt. No. 79, at ¶ 3; Twitter's Resp. to Order re Administrative Mot. to File
Under Seal, Dkt. No. 91, at 1. Accordingly, the motion to file this material under seal is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 29, 2016
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

2