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)
msobol@lchb.com
David T. Rudolph (State Bar No. 233457)
drudolph@lchb.com
Melissa Gardner (State Bar No. 289096)
mgardner@lchb.com
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: 415.956.1000
Facsimile: 415.956.1008
7
8
9
10
11
12
Hank Bates (State Bar No. 167688)
hbates@cbplaw.com
Allen Carney
acarney@cbplaw.com
David Slade
dslade@cbplaw.com
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
11311 Arcade Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
Telephone: 501.312.8500
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)
msobol@lchb.com
David T. Rudolph (State Bar No. 233457)
drudolph@lchb.com
Melissa Gardner (State Bar No. 289096)
mgardner@lchb.com
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: 415.956.1000
Facsimile: 415.956.1008
Rachel Geman
rgeman@lchb.com
Nicholas Diamand
ndiamand@lchb.com
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1413
Telephone: 212.355.9500
Facsimile: 212.355.9592
20
Hank Bates (State Bar No. 167688)
hbates@cbplaw.com
Allen Carney
acarney@cbplaw.com
David Slade
dslade@cbplaw.com
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
11311 Arcade Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
Telephone: 501.312.8500
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)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?