Doe v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
Doe v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
2022 WL 17970394 (N.D. Cal. 2022)
December 21, 2022

Orrick, William H.,  United States District Judge

Privacy
Download PDF
To Cite List
Summary
The Ninth Circuit granted Meta Platforms, Inc.'s administrative motions to seal its internal proprietary, commercially sensitive, and confidential information related to its data filtration systems in the preliminary injunction briefing and supporting declarations. The Court found that Meta had established compelling reasons to seal the information at issue.
Additional Decisions
John DOE, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
META PLATFORMS, INC., et al., Defendants
Case No. 22-cv-03580-WHO
United States District Court, N.D. California
Signed December 21, 2022

Counsel

Jeffrey Alan Koncius, Nicole Ramirez, Kiesel Law LLP, Beverly Hills, CA, Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP, San Francisco, CA, Amanda M. Steiner, Beth E. Terrell, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, Seattle, WA, Amy Collignon Gunn, Pro Hac Vice, Elizabeth S. Lenivy, Pro Hac Vice, The Simon Law Firm, P. C., St. Louis, MO, An V. Truong, Pro Hac Vice, Eric Steven Johnson, Pro Hac Vice, Jay Barnes, Pro Hac Vice, Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC, New York, NY, Geoffrey Aaron Graber, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Washington, DC, Jennifer M. Paulson, Pro Hac Vice, Simmons Hanly Conroy, Alton, IL, Paul R. Kiesel, Kiesel Law LLP, Beverly Hils, CA, Stephen M. Gorny, Pro Hac Vice, Gorny Dandurand, LC, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff John Doe.
Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP, San Francisco, CA, Geoffrey Aaron Graber, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Washington, DC, Jeffrey Alan Koncius, Nicole Ramirez, Kiesel Law LLP, Beverly Hills, CA, for Plaintiff John Doe, II.
Geoffrey Aaron Graber, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Washington, DC, Jeffrey Alan Koncius, Nicole Ramirez, Kiesel Law LLP, Beverly Hills, CA, for Plaintiffs Jane Doe I, Jane Doe, II.
Geoffrey Aaron Graber, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Washington, DC, Andre Michel Mura, Hanne Jensen, Rosemary M. Rivas, Gibbs Law Group LLP, Oakland, CA, Claire L. Torchiana, Eric Alfred Kafka, Pro Hac Vice, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, New York, NY, John A. Yanchunis, Ryan McGee, Morgan and Morgan Complex Litigation Group, Tampa, FL, Joseph P. Brent, Brent & Fiol, LLP, San Rafael, CA, Michael Kipp Mueller, Brent & Fiol, LLP, Pasadena, CA, Michael Francis Ram, Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff Doe.
Jae K. Kim, Lynch Carpenter, LLP, Pasadena, CA, Hannah N. Barnett, Pro Hac Vice, Lynch Carpenter, LLP, Pittsburgh, PA, for Plaintiff Malinda Smidga.
David S. Casey, Jr., Gayle Meryl Blatt, Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt and Penfield LLP, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff Michael Krackenberger.
Jennie Lee Anderson, Lori Erin Andrus, Andrus Anderson LLP, San Francisco, CA, Alison D. Hawthorne, Pro Hac Vice, Rachel Nichole Minder, Pro Hac Vice, Rebecca Diane Gilliland, Pro Hac Vice, W. Daniel Miles, III, Pro Hac Vice, Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis & Miles, P.C., Montgomery, AL, for Plaintiffs John Doe 1, John Doe 2.
Michael Graham Rhodes, Cameron James Clark, Caroline A. Lebel, Kyle C. Wong, Cooley LLP, San Francisco, CA, Abigail Augus Barrera, Elizabeth Katharine McCloskey, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP, San Francisco, CA, Andrew Kasabian, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Lauren R. Goldman, Pro Hac Vice, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY, Trenton James Van Oss, Pro Hac Vice, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc.
Teresa Carey Chow, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant The Regents of the University of California.
Orrick, William H., United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL Dkt. Nos. 77, 99, 143

*1 Meta seeks to seal information regarding its data filtration systems in the preliminary injunction briefing and supporting declarations. In particular, on October 17, 2022, defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. made an administrative motion to file under seal one sentence from the Declaration of Tobias Wooldridge (“Wooldridge Decl.”) and the corresponding portion of Meta's opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction that restates that factual information. Dkt. 77. In support of its administrative motion, Meta filed the declaration of Lauren Goldman, who argues that the information at issue should be sealed because it provides insight into Meta's methodologies and techniques used to detect and filter out potentially sensitive information. See Declaration of Lauren Goldman (“Goldman Decl.”) [Dkt. 77-2] ¶ 4. Goldman claims that this information is confidential and proprietary, and that disclosure of this information would cause competitive harm. Id. ¶¶ 4–5.
On October 26, 2022, plaintiffs made an administrative motion to file under seal three words from their reply brief and portions of the Declaration of Christo Wilson (“Wilson Decl.”) that reference information contained within the Wooldridge Decl. See Dkt. 99. In support of plaintiffs’ administrative motion, Meta filed a statement in support of the motion to seal, arguing that the information at issue should be sealed for the same reasons as set forth in Meta's initial motion to seal—i.e., that the information at issue consisted of Meta's “internal proprietary, commercially sensitive, and confidential information,” and that Meta would be competitively disadvantaged by disclosure. Dkt. 109 at 1.
Finally, on November 23, 2022, Meta made another administrative motion to file under seal substantial portions of the Supplemental Declaration of Tobias Wooldridge (“Supp. Wooldridge Decl.”). Dkt. 143. The Supp. Wooldridge Decl. addresses the feasibility of Wilson's suggestions for improving Meta's data filtration systems. See Supp. Wooldridge Decl. [Dkt. 143-3] ¶¶ 2, 16–51. In support of the administrative motion, Meta filed a declaration by Lauren Goldman which was largely identical to the previous Goldman Decl. Compare Dkt. 77-2 to Dkt. 143-2.
In the Ninth Circuit, a party seeking to seal judicial records related to a dispositive matter can only overcome the “strong presumption” of public access to judicial records by demonstrating “sufficiently compelling reasons” that override the public policies favoring disclosure. In re Midland Nat'l Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). To seal records associated with a dispositive matter, “the district court must articulate a factual basis for each compelling reason to seal” offered by the party. In re Midland Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 686 F.3d at 1119. “What constitutes a ‘compelling reason’ is best left to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978)). When seeking to file under seal judicial records related to a non-dispositive matter, the party must make a “particularized” showing of good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Id.
*2 Civil Local Rule 79-5 allows the Court to seal documents only upon a request that establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are sealable. Civil L.R. 79-5. The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material and be supported by a declaration establishing compelling reasons or good cause to justify the sealing. Id. Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate information as confidential or sealable is insufficient to establish that the information should be sealed by the Court. Id.
Because the preliminary injunction motion here was more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, Meta must show compelling reasons justify keeping the information under seal. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d at 1103. At this early stage in the case, I conclude that Meta has done so.
Meta seeks to seal information regarding the amount of data that Meta receives and Meta's techniques used to detect and filter out potentially sensitive information. The details of how and why Meta has designed its filtration systems are confidential, proprietary commercial information; Meta contends that the disclosure of this information would cause competitive harm because competitors would gain unfair insight into how Meta's systems operate and be able to duplicate features of Meta's filtration systems. Goldman Decl. ¶¶ 4–5. The disclosure of business information that could create competitive harm is a compelling reason to seal. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d at 1097; see also In re Google Inc. Gmail Litig., No. 13-md-02430-LHK, 2013 WL 5366963, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2013) (finding “compelling reasons to seal” “specific descriptions of how Gmail operates”); Adtrader, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 17-cv-07082-BLF, 2020 WL 6395513, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2020) (finding “a compelling reason” to seal “confidential, non-public information related to how Google maintains the security of its advertising products,” including “systems functionality related to detecting and addressing invalid activity”); Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co., No. 16-cv-04955-LHK, 2018 WL 7814785, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2018) (finding “compelling reasons” to seal information providing insight into “business strategies and internal decisionmaking”). I accept Meta's representations regarding the competitive harm that could result from disclosure of the information at issue. As the case continues and the factual record becomes more robust, however, Meta will need to provide more support to show that disclosure of general information of how the filtration systems work—i.e., the information at issue in the reply brief—would competitively harm Meta. See Dkt. 99-2.
Meta also argues that disclosure of this information could impede Meta's integrity efforts aimed at detecting and filtering out unwanted and potentially sensitive health information. Goldman Decl. ¶ 6. Courts in this district have found that compelling reasons support sealing material that could hinder efforts to avoid unwanted materials or activity. See In re Google Inc. Gmail Litig., 2013 WL 5366963, at *3 (finding compelling reasons to seal information relating to Google's defenses “to combat spammers, hackers, and others who propagate” unwanted or harmful materials); Adtrader, 2020 WL 6395513, at *2 (finding compelling reasons to seal information that individuals could use to manipulate “systems information about how Google detects and reacts to invalid activity”). As noted above, I credit Meta's representations regarding the consequences of disclosure at this early stage.
*3 Because Meta has established compelling reasons exist for sealing the information at issue, the administrative motions to seal are GRANTED.
This order resolves Dkt. Nos. 77, 99, and 143.
IT IS SO ORDERED.