Al-Ahmed v. Twitter, Inc.

Filing 49

ORDER: granting in part and denying in part 35 Letter Motion to Seal. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Twitter's Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, for the following reasons: Defendant Twitter proposed redacting the identifying information of its employee declarant, citing the sensitive nature of the allegations, the related criminal investigation, and the desire to avoid potential harassment or retaliation. Dkt. 35 at 3. The Court finds that the need to protect the employee from poss ible reprisal constitutes a higher value sufficient to overcome the presumption of access. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 126 (2d Cir. 2006). Therefore, the request to redact the identifying information of the employee declaran t is GRANTED. Defendant Twitter proposed redacting the user identification numbers of Plaintiff's Twitter account and those belonging to third-party account holders. See Dkt. 35 at 12 (referring to Exhibits 3 and 4 to the Twitter Employee Declar ation). Additionally, Twitter proposed redacting Plaintiff's telephone number from a public Twitter post and his telephone number and email address from a public press release. See Dkt. 35 at 5 (referring to Exhibits C and D to the Declaration o f Anjali Srinivasan). The Court finds that the personal privacy interests of the third-party account holders and of Plaintiff in his contact information outweighs the presumption of public access. See Valassis Commc'ns,Inc. v. News Corp., No. 17 -CV-7378, 2020 WL 2190708, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2020). As such, these requests are GRANTED. Twitter proposed and Plaintiff Al-Ahmed did not object to redacting a private message Al-Ahmed sent from his now-suspended Arabic language Twitter account t o a third-party Twitter user, who, in turn, reported the message to Twitter. See Dkt. 35 at 5 (referring to Exhibit 5 to the Twitter Employee Declaration). The Court recognizes that the content of this repugnant message may be embarrassing for Plaint iff Al-Ahmed. But avoiding embarrassment is not the type of "higher value" that justifies overcoming the presumption of immediate public access. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 126. In short, this request is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendan t Twitter must refile its Motion to Dismiss and supporting exhibits in line with this Order by no later than Monday, November 9, 2020. The Court reminds Defendant Twitter to follow Rule 5B of the Court's Individual Practices, including that prop osed redactions must be highlighted in the unredacted documents filed under seal on ECF. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the open motion at docket entry 35. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 11/06/2020) (ama)

Case 1:20-cv-04982-VEC Document 49 Filed 11/06/20 USDC 1 of 3
Page SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 11/06/2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------- X
ALI AL-AHMED,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
20-CV-4982 (VEC)
-against:
:
ORDER
:
TWITTER, INC.,
:
:
Defendant. :
-------------------------------------------------------------- X
VALERIE CAPRONI, United States District Judge:
WHEREAS on September 28, 2020, Defendant Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter”) filed a Motion to
Seal, Dkt. 35;
WHEREAS Plaintiff Ali Al-Ahmed did not object to Defendant Twitter’s request, Dkt.
35;
WHEREAS Defendant Twitter proposed redacting the name of its employee declarant as
well as lists of Twitter accountholders, Dkt. 35 at 1–2;
WHEREAS Plaintiff Al-Ahmed did not object to Twitter’s proposal to redact a private
message he sent from his now suspended Arabic-language Twitter account, Dkt. 35 at 5; and
WHEREAS Plaintiff Al-Ahmed further did not object to Twitter’s proposal to redact his
telephone number and email address as listed on public documents, Dkt. 35 at 5;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Twitter’s Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part, for the following reasons:
1. Defendant Twitter proposed redacting the identifying information of its employee
declarant, citing the sensitive nature of the allegations, the related criminal investigation,
and the desire to avoid potential harassment or retaliation. Dkt. 35 at 3. The Court finds

Case 1:20-cv-04982-VEC Document 49 Filed 11/06/20 Page 2 of 3

that the need to protect the employee from possible reprisal constitutes a higher value
sufficient to overcome the presumption of access. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of
Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 126 (2d Cir. 2006). Therefore, the request to redact the
identifying information of the employee declarant is GRANTED.
2. Defendant Twitter proposed redacting the user identification numbers of Plaintiff’s
Twitter account and those belonging to third-party accountholders. See Dkt. 35 at 1–2
(referring to Exhibits 3 and 4 to the Twitter Employee Declaration). Additionally,
Twitter proposed redacting Plaintiff’s telephone number from a public Twitter post and
his telephone number and email address from a public press release. See Dkt. 35 at 5
(referring to Exhibits C and D to the Declaration of Anjali Srinivasan). The Court finds
that the personal privacy interests of the third-party accountholders and of Plaintiff in his
contact information outweighs the presumption of public access. See Valassis Commc'ns,
Inc. v. News Corp., No. 17-CV-7378, 2020 WL 2190708, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2020).
As such, these requests are GRANTED.
3. Twitter proposed and Plaintiff Al-Ahmed did not object to redacting a private message
Al-Ahmed sent from his now-suspended Arabic language Twitter account to a third-party
Twitter user, who, in turn, reported the message to Twitter. See Dkt. 35 at 5 (referring to
Exhibit 5 to the Twitter Employee Declaration). The Court recognizes that the content of
this repugnant message may be embarrassing for Plaintiff Al-Ahmed. But avoiding
embarrassment is not the type of “higher value” that justifies overcoming the
presumption of immediate public access. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 126. In short, this request
is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Twitter must refile its Motion to Dismiss
and supporting exhibits in line with this Order by no later than Monday, November 9, 2020.
2

Case 1:20-cv-04982-VEC Document 49 Filed 11/06/20 Page 3 of 3

The Court reminds Defendant Twitter to follow Rule 5B of the Court’s Individual Practices,
including that proposed redactions must be highlighted in the unredacted documents filed under
seal on ECF.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the open motion at docket entry
35.

SO ORDERED.
_________________________
VALERIE CAPRONI
United States District Judge

Date: November 6, 2020
New York, New York

3