Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.

Filing 193

ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting in part and denying in part 181 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MATTHEW CAMPBELL, et al.,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 13-cv-5996-PJH

Plaintiffs,

8
v.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEAL

FACEBOOK INC.,
Defendant.

12
13
14

Before the court is the parties’ joint administrative motion to seal documents

15

accompanying class certification briefs and evidentiary objections. See Dkt. 181. The

16

motion, which was filed at the court’s direction as a replacement for the overly-broad

17

motions to seal that were filed previously, sets forth two categories of information for

18

which plaintiffs seek sealing, and three categories of information for which Facebook

19

seeks sealing. Specifically, plaintiffs seek the sealing of (1) representations of the

20

specific content of plaintiffs’ private correspondence with third parties, and (2) information

21

concerning third parties’ private affairs disclosed nowhere in public filings and not

22

relevant to the merits of the motion for class certification. Facebook seeks the sealing of

23

(1) information regarding the processes and functionality of Facebook’s security and anti-

24

abuse products and systems, (2) source code, and (3) the names of internal tables in

25

Facebook’s databases. The court finds that each of these categories of information is

26

properly sealable, and GRANTS the parties’ motion to the extent that it seeks such relief.

27
28

However, the parties have also redacted other information from their briefs and
evidence, namely, the names of Facebook employees. The court takes this opportunity

1

to clarify its ru
uling from th class ce
he
ertification h
hearing – th court hel that “the addresses
he
ld

2

and phone nu
umbers of anyone, whe
a
ether or no they are a party to th lawsuit,” may be
ot
he

3

dacted. Dk 177 at 10 The court also allo
kt.
05.
owed the re
edaction of the “names of people
s
red

4

wh are not parties to the suit.” Id. Facebook counsel then asked about the status of
ho
p
k’s
d

5

cer
rtain depon
nents, who were non-p
w
parties at th time of th depositio but who may
he
he
on,
o

6

become partie if the cla were to be certified The cou stated that those na
es
ass
d.
urt
ames could

7

be redacted also, “regard
a
dless of wh their sta
hat
atus is,” but intended to confine th ruling to
o
hat
o

8

e
sentative cla membe regardl
ass
ers,
less of their status as parties to
r
the names of non-repres

9

the case. To the extent that either side seeks to redact the names o actual pa
e
of
arties to the
e
law
wsuit (e.g., the named plaintiffs, or Faceboo k employee that req
o
es),
quest is den
nied.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Facebook
Ind
deed, the cu
urrent proposed redac
ctions appe to redac the name of some F
ear
ct
es

12

em
mployees, but not others. Compa Dkt. 178 at 8, n.2 with Dkt. 178-1 at 1 n. 38.
b
are
8-1
26
10,

13

In some insta
ances, the same name sometimes appears r
s
e
s
redacted in one place, but
,

14

unredacted in other plac (and in some insta
n
ces
s
ances, those employee submit
e
es

15

declarations, in which their names are, of cour
a
rse, unreda
acted). Com
mpare Dkt. 178-1 at

16

10:3 with Dkt. 178-2 at 5, n.2, Dkt. 161-3. Acc
.
5
cordingly, th parties a directed to re-file
he
are
d

17

the briefs with the name of partie unredact
eir
es
es
ted, and mu also do so with res
ust
spect to any
y

18

exh
hibits affect by this ruling. The parties sh have un June 15 2016 to c
ted
e
hall
ntil
5,
comply with

19

this order.
s

20
21
22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: May 18, 2016
1
__
__________
__________
__________
_______
PH
HYLLIS J. H
HAMILTON
Un
nited States District Ju
s
udge

25
26
27
28
2