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
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?