Duffy et al v. Facebook, Inc. et al

Filing 76

ORDER: The Defendants' Motions to Seal [Docs. 73 , 74 ] are GRANTED and the unredacted portions of the specified documents and materials shall be filed under seal until further Order of this Court. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 5/15/2018. (maf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:17-cv-00123-MR-DLH

ROBERT LOUIS GARY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
FACEBOOK, INC., WAYNE
)
HAWKINS, and JAMES SWENSEN,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendants’ Motions to Seal
Certain Deposition Excerpts, Exhibits and Information in Support of
Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment [Docs. 73, 74].
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)).
When presented with a motion to seal, the law of this Circuit requires
this Court to: “(1) provide public notice of the request to seal and allow
interested parties a reasonable opportunity to object, (2) consider less
drastic alternatives to sealing the documents, and (3) provide specific
reasons and factual findings supporting its decision to seal the documents
and for rejecting the alternatives.” Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288,
302 (4th Cir. 2000).
In the present case, the public has been provided with adequate notice
and an opportunity to object to the Defendants’ motions. The Defendants
filed their motions on May 2, 2018, and such motions have been accessible
to the public through the Court’s electronic case filing system since that time.
Further, the Defendants have demonstrated that the documents at issue
contain certain confidential information, including detailed pay and
compensation information about Facebook’s employees, and that the
public’s right of access to such information is substantially outweighed by the
compelling interest in protecting the details of such information from public

2

disclosure. Finally, having considered less drastic alternatives to sealing the
documents, the Court concludes that sealing of these documents is narrowly
tailored to serve the interest of protecting the Defendants’ confidential
business information.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motions to Seal
[Docs. 73, 74] are GRANTED and the unredacted portions of the specified
documents and materials shall be filed under seal until further Order of this
Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: May 15, 2018

3