Meta Platforms, Inc. v. BrandTotal Ltd. et al

Filing 157

ORDER denying #155 request to redact previous order. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero on June 9, 2021. (jcslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/9/2021)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

FACEBOOK, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 20-cv-07182-JCS
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
REDACTIONS TO PREVIOUS ORDER

v.
BRANDTOTAL LTD., et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 152, 153, 155

Defendants.

12

On June 3, 202, the Court filed an order provisionally under seal and ordered the parties to

13

show cause why it should not be filed in the public record. See dkts. 152, 153. BrandTotal filed a

14

response seeking sealing of two passages of the order. Response (dkt. 155). Facebook did not file

15

a response. Generally, subject to exceptions not applicable here, a party must show “compelling

16

reasons” to maintain documents in the record of a civil action under seal. Ctr. for Auto Safety v.

17

Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016).

18

The first passage at issue, appearing at page 4 of the Court’s order, concerns legal advice

19

BrandTotal received from its Israeli counsel, for which the Court previously determined

20

BrandTotal waived its attorney-client privilege. BrandTotal presents the following argument for

21

sealing that portion of the order:

22

26

This information concerns legal advice BrandTotal requested prior to
the commencement of this litigation. This information was addressed
in the Court’s February 24, 2021, Order, where the Court recognized
the information was confidential and sealed this same information.
ECF No. 111 at 3; see also ECF No. 101-1 (explaining why
information is confidential and, if published would cause imminent
harm to BrandTotal). Moreover, these lines appear only in the
“Background” section of the Court’s order and are, at best,
tangentially related to the Court’s holdings.

27

Response at 1. The previous order on which BrandTotal relies in fact held that BrandTotal’s now-

28

waived privilege was not a basis for sealing and sealed only unrelated information based on other

23
24
25

1

confidentiality concerns, applying a relaxed standard of “good cause” for sealing exhibits

2

submitted in support of a discovery motion, which is not applicable here to sealing an order of the

3

Court addressing a motion to dismiss. See dkt. 111.1
The second passage at issue, at page 5 of the Court’s order, addresses the declining

4
5

functionality of a previous version of BrandTotal’s product after it was removed from Google’s

6

web store. BrandTotal asserts that publishing “this information would harm BrandTotal by

7

providing BrandTotal’s competitors insight into BrandTotal’s flagship product.” Response at 1.

8

The parties have addressed at least in general terms the declining functionality of that product in

9

the public record. The Court is not persuaded that BrandTotal is likely to suffer any meaningful
competitive harm if slightly more specific information about a product version that is now entirely

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

defunct is included in the public record.
Accordingly, BrandTotal’s request to maintain portions of the Court’s order under seal is

12
13

DENIED, and the Court will file the order unredacted in the public record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: June 9, 2021
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

To the extent BrandTotal is concerned that the passage describes operation of BrandTotal’s
products, rather than that it reveals legal advice, BrandTotal has not shown compelling reasons to
seal a description of product functionality it no longer uses, particularly when the source code for
the product had been made publicly available and its operation was previously described in
documents filed publicly in this case. See Order to Show Cause (dkt. 59) (noting these
shortcomings with respect to a previous motion to file under seal).
2
1