Vance et al v. Microsoft Corporation

Filing 105

ORDER ON MOTION TO SEAL: The court GRANTS IN PART Microsoft's 82 motion to seal Ms. Daley's 83 declaration. The court ORDERS Microsoft to redact from Ms. Daley's declaration only the images on pages 9, 12, 13, 15, 21, 23, and 29 in accordance with this order and file the redacted declaration on the court's docket within seven (7) days of the filing date of this order. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (LH)

Case 2:20-cv-01082-JLR Document 105 Filed 01/10/22 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

STEVEN VANCE, et al.,

11

v.

12
13

ORDER ON MOTION TO SEAL

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Defendant.

14
15

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. C20-1082JLR

Before the court is Defendant Microsoft Corporation’s (“Microsoft”) motion to

16

seal. (Mot. (Dkt. # 82).) Specifically, Microsoft moves to seal two documents it filed in

17

support of its opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification: (1) an excerpt of

18

Interested Party International Business Machines Corp.’s (“IBM”) Diversity in Faces

19

Dataset (“DiF”) attached as Exhibit 6 to the declaration of Xiang Li (Li Decl. (Dkt.

20

# 80) ¶ 7, Ex. 6 (Dkt. # 83-1) (sealed)); and (2) the declaration of Peggy Daley (Daley

21

Decl. ((Dkt. # 81) (redacted) & (Dkt. # 83) (sealed))). IBM responded to Microsoft’s

22

motion. (Resp. (Dkt. # 99).) Having considered the motion, IBM’s response thereto,
ORDER - 1

Case 2:20-cv-01082-JLR Document 105 Filed 01/10/22 Page 2 of 4

1

the balance of the record, and the applicable law, the court GRANTS IN PART

2

Microsoft’s motion to seal.

3

When deciding a motion to seal, courts “start with a strong presumption in favor

4

of access to court records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135

5

(9th Cir. 2003) (citing Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). This

6

presumption, however, “is not absolute and can be overridden given sufficiently

7

compelling reasons for doing so.” Id. (citing San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist.

8

Ct. N. Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 1999)). Because the sealed

9

documents at issue here are attached to a motion that is “more than tangentially related to

10

the merits of [this] case,” the court applies the compelling reasons standard to determine

11

whether sealing is appropriate. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092,

12

1098-102 (9th Cir. 2016). Under this standard, the party seeking to seal a judicial record

13

bears the burden of showing that “compelling reasons supported by specific factual

14

findings . . . outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring

15

disclosure.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir.

16

2006).

17

First, Microsoft states that Exhibit 6 to Ms. Li’s declaration may contain (1)

18

biometric information about Illinois residents that would, if Plaintiffs’ theory of the case

19

is correct, violate Illinois law and (2) URLs to and metadata of Flickr images depicting

20

children. (See Mot. at 2.) The court agrees with Microsoft that there are compelling

21

privacy reasons to maintain under seal the alleged biometric data in the DiF dataset and

22
ORDER - 2

Case 2:20-cv-01082-JLR Document 105 Filed 01/10/22 Page 3 of 4

1

information relating to images of children. (See id.) Accordingly, the court GRANTS

2

Microsoft’s motion to seal Exhibit 6 to Ms. Li’s declaration.

3

Second, although Microsoft moved to seal all of the substantive portions of Ms.

4

Daley’s declaration based on its understanding that IBM considered the declaration

5

confidential (see Mot. at 3; see also Daley Decl. (Dkt. # 81) (redacted)), IBM argues

6

only that the court should maintain under seal the images of unidentified non-party

7

individuals that are associated with URLs in the DiF dataset and that are displayed in the

8

declaration (Resp. at 2-3 (citing Daley Decl. at 9, 12, 13, 15, 21, 23 & 29)). IBM asserts

9

that these unidentified non-party individuals have a privacy interest in their likenesses

10

and that it is not possible to ask these unidentified individuals whether they consent to

11

have their images filed on the public docket. (Id.) IBM does not present any argument

12

regarding the substantive portions of the declaration. (See generally id.) The court

13

agrees that the privacy interests of the unidentified non-parties is a compelling reason to

14

maintain these images under seal. Accordingly, the court GRANTS IN PART

15

Microsoft’s motion to seal Ms. Daley’s declaration. The court ORDERS Microsoft to

16

redact from Ms. Daley’s declaration only the images on pages 9, 12, 13, 15, 21, 23, and

17

29 in accordance with this order and file the redacted declaration on the court’s docket

18

within seven (7) days of the filing date of this order.

19

//

20

//

21

//

22

//
ORDER - 3

Case 2:20-cv-01082-JLR Document 105 Filed 01/10/22 Page 4 of 4

1

Dated this 10th day of January, 2022.

2

A

3

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
ORDER - 4