Klein et al v. Facebook, Inc.

Filing 344

ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL. Signed by Judge James Donato on 8/31/2022. (jdlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/31/2022)

Case 3:20-cv-08570-JD Document 344 Filed 08/31/22 Page 1 of 5

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

MAXIMILIAN KLEIN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

6

ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL

v.

7
8

Case No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD

META PLATFORMS, INC.,
Defendant.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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

28

required by Civil Local Rule 79-5, plaintiffs filed the initial notice of sealing for documents

Case 3:20-cv-08570-JD Document 344 Filed 08/31/22 Page 2 of 5

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.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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

13

terms. The Court declines to redact general descriptions of the agreement that the parties to a

14

contract reached.

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

17

information would be an invasion of privacy for the individual employees. Id. 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
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 31, 2022

26
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

27
28
2

Case 3:20-cv-08570-JD Document 344 Filed 08/31/22 Page 3 of 5

EXHIBIT A TO ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL

1
2

Document

Information sought
to be sealed

Proffered Reason for
Sealing

Ruling

3
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
4
5
6

First
Amended
Complaint

Paragraphs 441-452,
454, 455, 458-61, 463

Contains non-public
information about
negotiations of a
confidential agreement
concerning Meta’s
non-use of certain
data. Disclosure
would adversely
impact Meta’s ability
to negotiate similar
agreements in the
future. (See Dkt. No.
244-1 ¶ 6)

Granted in part. The
language in paragraphs
441, 449, 451-452, 458
may be sealed because it
reveals specific terms for
negotiation, which would
potentially harm Meta’s
competitive standing.
Denied for paragraphs 442448, 450, 454, 455, 459461, 463.

First
Amended
Complaint

Table of Contents,
Paragraphs 10, 436438, 464-472

Contains non-public
information about
terms of a confidential
agreement concerning
Meta’s non-use of
certain data.
Disclosure would
adversely impact Meta
and the counterparty’s
ability to negotiate
similar agreements in
the future. (See Dkt.
No. 244-1 ¶ 7)

Granted in part. The
language in paragraphs
464-468 may be sealed
because it reveals specific
terms in a contract, which
would which would
potentially harm Meta’s
competitive standing.
Denied for Table of
contents and paragraphs 10,
436-438, and 469-472.

First
Amended
Complaint

Paragraphs 9, 500-502, Contains non-public
509-524, 530, 531,
information about the
534, 535
terms of confidential
agreements concerning
Meta’s use of data to
inform content
development
decisions. Disclosure
would impact Meta’s
ability to negotiate
future agreements.
(See Dkt. No. 244-1
¶ 8)

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

Granted in part. The
language in paragraph 510
may be sealed because it
reveals specific terms in a
contract, which would
potentially harm Meta’s
competitive standing.
Denied for paragraphs 9,
500-502, 509, 511-524,
530, 531, 534, 535.

Case 3:20-cv-08570-JD Document 344 Filed 08/31/22 Page 4 of 5

1

Document

Information sought
to be sealed

Proffered Reason for
Sealing

Ruling

2
3
4

First
Amended
Complaint

Paragraphs 440, 456,
463, 485, 486, 503

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING
Meta’s
Motion to
Dismiss, Dkt.
No. 262

11:8-9

Contains non-public
information about
terms of a confidential
agreement concerning
Meta’s non-use of
certain data and use of
other data to inform
content development
decisions. Disclosure
could create a
competitive
disadvantage for Meta
and its counterparty in
negotiations. (See
Dkt. No. 284-1 ¶¶ 6-7)

Denied.

Advertiser
Plaintiffs’
Opposition to
Meta’s
Motion to
Dismiss, Dkt.
No. 271

5:10-12, 6:16-19,
12:21-24

Contains non-public
information about
terms of a confidential
agreement concerning
Meta’s non-use of
certain data and use of
other data to inform
content development
decisions. Disclosure
could create a
competitive
disadvantage for Meta
and its counterparty in
negotiations. (See
Dkt. No. 284-1 ¶¶ 6-7)

Denied.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Contains non-public
Denied.
information about
advertising sales,
including information
about advertising
revenues. Disclosure
could create a
competitive
disadvantage for Meta.
(See Dkt. No. 244-1
¶ 9)

28
4

Case 3:20-cv-08570-JD Document 344 Filed 08/31/22 Page 5 of 5

1

Document

Information sought
to be sealed

Proffered Reason for
Sealing

Ruling

2
DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEFS
3
4
5
6

Discovery
Letter Brief,
April 21,
2022, Dkt.
No. 281

Materials were
Denied.
redacted because they
were marked as
“Confidential,” or
“Highly Confidential,”
during production, but
Meta represents that it
does not seek for any
portions of the
document to be sealed.
(See Dkt. No. 280-1
¶ 3; Dkt. No. 285)

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Discovery
Letter Brief,
July 27, 2022,
Dkt. No. 322

Redacted current and
former non-officer
employee names and
email addresses on
page 2.

Employee names and
email addresses should
be redacted to protect
the individuals’
privacy. (See Dkt. No.
326)

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5

Granted in part. There is
a sufficient privacy interest
in keeping the email
addresses of employees
redacted, but their names
will not be redacted.