Windy City Innovations, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.

Filing 27

ORDER denying Defendant's 23 Unopposed Motion to Seal. Defendant shall file an unredacted version of the Memorandum and Jordan Declaration within 5 days of entry of this Order. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 8/29/2015. (klb) Modified file date on 8/31/2015 (klb).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:15-cv-00102-MR

WINDY CITY INNOVATIONS, LLC,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
FACEBOOK, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant’s Unopposed
Motion to Seal [Doc. 23].
The Defendant Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) moves for leave to file
under seal its Memorandum in support of its Motion to Transfer Venue
(“Memorandum”) and the Declaration of Jeremy Jordan (“Jordan
Declaration”). Specifically, Facebook seeks permanent sealing of the names
of certain Facebook employees identified on pages 3 and 13 of the
Memorandum and in paragraphs 5 and 7 of the Jordan Declaration. The
Plaintiff does not oppose Facebook’s motion to seal.
The press and the public have, under both the First Amendment and
the common law, a qualified right of access to judicial documents and
records filed in civil and criminal proceedings. Doe v. Public Citizen, 749

F.3d 246, 265 (4th Cir. 2014). “The common-law presumptive right of access
extends to all judicial documents and records, and the presumption can be
rebutted only by showing that ‘countervailing interests heavily outweigh the
public interests in access.’” Id. at 265-66 (quoting in part Rushford v. New
Yorker Magazine, Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 253 (4th Cir. 1988)).

The First

Amendment right of access “may be restricted only if closure is ‘necessitated
by a compelling government interest’ and the denial of access is ‘narrowly
tailored to serve that interest.’” Id. at 266 (quoting in part In re Wash. Post
Co., 807 F.2d 383, 390 (4th Cir. 1986)).
Here, Facebook has failed to demonstrate any interest compelling
enough to overcome the presumptive right of public access to these
documents, under either the First Amendment or the common law. As
grounds for its motion, Facebook contends that sealing of these names “is
necessary to protect confidential and sensitive business and personnel
information concerning Facebook and its employees,” and that “[p]ublic
knowledge of this confidential information could give competitors a distinct
competitive advantage over Defendant and impose on the privacy of
Facebook’s employees.” [Doc. 24 at 3]. These assertions, however, are
entirely conclusory and speculative. The Court cannot permit the sealing of
a document in a civil case “based on unsubstantiated or speculative claims
2

of harm . . . .” Public Citizen, 749 F.3d at 270. Facebook offers only
speculation that public knowledge of the identities of these Facebook
employees could give its competitors a distinct advantage.

See

Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. Alan & Kristin Hudson Farm, 278 F.R.D. 136,
142-43 (D. Md. 2011) (denying motion to seal identities of employees where
company claimed that competitors could use information to “poach” its
employees; company failed to provide any “specific demonstrations of fact”
or “concrete examples” of such conduct by its competitors).

Further,

Facebook has not shown how identifying those employees who may be
potential witnesses in this action unduly imposes on their privacy.
For these reasons, Facebook’s motion to seal is denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant’s Unopposed
Motion to Seal [Doc. 23] is DENIED. The Defendant shall file an unredacted
version of the Memorandum and the Jordan Declaration within five (5) days
of the entry of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

3