Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.

Filing 111

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal re Joint Letter Brief on Plaintiffs' Request for Production No. 41 and Interrogatory No. 8 filed by Matthew Campbell, Michael Hurley, David Shadpour. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Melissa Gardner, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Proposed Order, # 7 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Gardner, Melissa) (Filed on 9/18/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6

Michael W. Sobol (State Bar No. 194857)
[e-mail]
David T. Rudolph (State Bar No. 233457)
[e-mail]
Melissa Gardner (State Bar No. 289096)
[e-mail]
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.956.1008

7
8
9
10
11
12

Hank Bates (State Bar No. 167688)
[e-mail]
Allen Carney
[e-mail]
David Slade
[e-mail]
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
11311 Arcade Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 501.312.8505

13
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
14
15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
17
OAKLAND DIVISION

18
19
20

MATTHEW CAMPBELL, MICHAEL
HURLEY, and DAVID SHADPOUR, on
behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated,

21
Plaintiffs,
22
v.
23

Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
PORTIONS OF JOINT LETTER BRIEF
REGARDING FACEBOOK’S RESPONSES
TO PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORY NO.
8 AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
41

FACEBOOK, INC.,
24

Judge:

Honorable Maria-Elena James

Defendant.
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFFS’ ADMIN. MOTION TO SEAL
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (MEJ)

1

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5(c) and (d), Plaintiffs respectfully request an

2

order from the Court authorizing the filing under seal of (1) portions of the parties’ Joint Letter

3

Brief Regarding Facebook’s Responses to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 8 and Request For

4

Production No. 41 (the “Joint Letter”), as well as (2) Exhibit 1 to Exhibit E to the parties’ Joint

5

Letter.

6

The portions of the Joint Letter that Plaintiffs seek to seal are identified in the redacted

7

version of the Joint Letter, which is attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Melissa Gardner

8

in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal (“Gardner Declaration”). The unredacted version of the

9

Joint Letter is attached as Exhibit B to the Gardner Declaration, and contains yellow highlighting

10
11

to indicate where redactions are proposed.
Plaintiffs request that the portions of the Joint Letter be filed under seal because they refer

12

to documents or information that Defendant has designated “CONFIDENTIAL” or

13

“CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under the Amended Stipulated Protective

14

Order (Dkt. No. 93). None of the information at issue in the Joint Letter was designated as

15

confidential by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs take no position on whether the designated portions of the

16

Joint Letter satisfy the requirements for sealing, and specifically reserve the right to challenge any

17

“CONFIDENTIAL” or “CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” designation under

18

the Stipulated Protective Order as well as the sealability of these documents under Civil Local

19

Rule 79-5.

20

Additionally, Plaintiffs seek an order to seal Exhibit 1 to Exhibit E to the Joint Letter,

21

which Plaintiffs have designated “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY”

22

because the document contains personally identifiable information related to private messages

23

sent and received by the Plaintiffs and third parties. (Gardner Decl., Ex. C). This information

24

includes, inter alia (1) the full name and/or Facebook ID of the sender, (2) the full name and/or

25

Facebook ID of the recipient, (3) the date and time of the communication, (4) the URL content of

26

the communication. (Gardner Decl., ¶ 5). Personal information of this type is entitled to

27

protection under the law, and compelling reasons exist to keep it confidential to protect Plaintiffs’

28

and third parties’ privacy interests, and to prevent exposure to harm or identity theft. See e.g.,
-1-

PLAINTIFFS’ ADMIN. MOTION TO SEAL
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (MEJ)

1

Brewer v. General Nutrition Corp., No. 11-3587 YGR, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159378, *6 (N.D.

2

Cal. Nov. 12, 2014); Nursing Home Pension Fund v. Oracle Corp., No. 01-00988, 2007 U.S.

3

Dist. LEXIS 84000, *9-10 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2007).

4

Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure grants the Court broad discretion to

5

permit sealing of court documents for, inter alia, the protection of parties from “annoyance,

6

embarrassment, [or] oppression,” as well as the protection of “a trade secret or other confidential

7

research, development, or commercial information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). The Ninth Circuit

8

has “carved out an exception to the presumption of access to judicial records for a sealed

9

discovery document [attached] to a nondispositive motion,” where the requesting party shows

10

good cause exists to keep the records under seal. Navarro v. Eskanos & Adler, No. 06-2231,

11

2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24864, at *6 (N.D. Cal. March 22, 2007) (citing Kamakana v. City &

12

Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[A] ‘particularized showing’ under the

13

‘good cause’ standard of Rule 26(c) will ‘suffice[] to warrant preserving the secrecy of sealed

14

discovery material attached to nondispositive motions.”); see also Pintos v. Pacific Creditors

15

Assoc., 565 F.3d 1106, 1115 (9th Cir. 2009) (“In light of the weaker public interest in

16

nondispositive materials, we apply the ‘good cause’ standard when parties wish to keep them

17

under seal.”). As discussed above, Plaintiffs’ and third parties’ privacy interests are implicated by

18

the personally identifiable information contained in Exhibit 1 to Exhibit E to the Joint Letter

19

(Gardner Decl., Ex. C), and therefore have amply satisfied this “good cause” standard. Brewer,

20

2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159378, *6; Nursing Home Pension Fund, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84000,

21

*9-10.

22

Defendant must show good cause for sealing the documents they have placed a

23

confidentiality designation upon by submitting a declaration within four days after the lodging of

24

the designated documents. See Civil Local Rule 79-5(e).

25
26
27
28
-2-

PLAINTIFFS’ ADMIN. MOTION TO SEAL
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (MEJ)

1
2

Dated: September 18, 2015

LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
By:

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

/s/ Melissa Gardner
Melissa Gardner

Michael W. Sobol (State Bar No. 194857)
[e-mail]
David T. Rudolph (State Bar No. 233457)
[e-mail]
Melissa Gardner (State Bar No. 289096)
[e-mail]
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.956.1008
Rachel Geman
[e-mail]
Nicholas Diamand
[e-mail]
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1413
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 212.355.9592

20

Hank Bates (State Bar No. 167688)
[e-mail]
Allen Carney
[e-mail]
David Slade
[e-mail]
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
11311 Arcade Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 501.312.8505

21

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class

16
17
18
19

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

PLAINTIFFS’ ADMIN. MOTION TO SEAL
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (MEJ)