NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DAWN DANGAARD, et al., Plaintiffs, No. 22-01101 WHA
v. ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL INSTAGRAM, LLC, et al., [DKT. NOS. 250, 254] Defendants.
This order addresses motions to seal (Dkt. Nos. 250, 254) that stem from plaintiffs’ opposition to Meta’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 251). The public enjoys the right to know to whom the public courts provide relief (or not). Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–80 (9th Cir. 2006). Filings “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only for “compelling reasons.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101–02 (9th Cir.). That “standard applies to most judicial records,” with a “good cause” standard applying otherwise. Id. at 1098. Parties seeking to seal filings in this district must also follow basic rules, Civil L.R. 79-5. Plaintiffs filed several exhibits with their opposition to Meta’s motion for summary judgment. Meta moves to seal either parts of or entire exhibits that were attached to plaintiffs’ opposition brief. Meta also moves to seal portions of plaintiffs’ brief itself. This order rules as follows: Sealed Dkt. No. Document/ Result Reasoning Exhibit (Pub. Dkt. No.)
Dkt. No. 250-3 Exh. A-1 Entirety, Meta argues that this DENIED. exhibit should remain (Dkt. No. 239-1) under seal because it is irrelevant to the ultimate issue of the action. While this may be true, Meta still has not met the lesser standard of good cause. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097. Dkt. No. 250-4 Exh. A-2 Entirety, This information is DENIED. readily available in the (Dkt. No. 239-2) public record and does not warrant sealing. Dkt. No. 250-5 Exh. A-3 GRANTED Names and email IN PART addresses belong to (Dkt. No. 239-3) AND individuals who are not DENIED IN named in this suit and PART. thus warrants sealing. The content of the email, however, should not be sealed. Nor has Meta demonstrated otherwise. Dkt. No. 250-6 Exh. A-4 GRANTED See entry for Exh. A-3. (Dkt. No. 239-4) AND PART. Dkt. No. 250-7 Exh. A-5 GRANTED See entry for Exh. A-3. IN PART (Dkt. No. 239-5) AND PART. Dkt. No. 250-8 Exh. A-6 Entirety, Meta has not DENIED. demonstrated why this (Dkt. No. 239-6) exhibit warrants sealing. “The judge need not document compelling reasons to unseal; rather the proponent of sealing bears the burden with respect to sealing.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at Dkt. No. 250-9 Exh. A-7 GRANTED Names should remain IN PART sealed. The remainder of (Dkt. No. 239-7). AND the exhibit should not be DENIED IN sealed. Dkt. No. 250-10 Exh. A-8 Entirety, Meta has not DENIED. demonstrated why this (Dkt. No. 239-8). exhibit warrants sealing. “The judge need not document compelling reasons to unseal; rather the proponent of sealing bears the burden with respect to sealing.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182. Dkt. No. 250-11 Exh. A-9 Entirety, See entry for Exh. A-8. DENIED. (Dkt. No. 239-9)
Dkt. No. 250-12 Exh. A-10 GRANTED Names should remain IN PART sealed. The remainder of (Dkt. No. 239-10) AND the exhibit should not be DENIED IN sealed. PART. Dkt. No. 250-13 Exh. A-11 GRANTED Names should remain IN PART sealed. The remainder of (Dkt. No. 239-11) AND the exhibit should not be DENIED IN sealed. PART. Dkt. No. 250- 14 Exh. A-12 Entirety, See entry for Exh. A-8. DENIED. (Dkt. No. 239-12)
Dkt. No. 250- 15 Exh. A-13 Entirety, See entry for Exh. A-8. (Dkt. No. 239-13) Dkt. No. 250-16 Exh. A-14 Entirety, See entry for Exh. A-8. DENIED. (Dkt. No. 239-14)
Dkt. No. 250-17 Exh. A-15 GRANTED Names and email IN PART addresses belong to (Dkt. No. 239-15) AND individuals who are not DENIED IN named in this suit and The content of the email and messages, however, should not be sealed. Nor has Meta demonstrated otherwise. Dkt. No. 250-18 Exh. A-16 Entirety, Meta has not DENIED. demonstrated why this (Dkt. No. 239-16) exhibit warrants sealing. “The judge need not document compelling reasons to unseal; rather the proponent of sealing bears the burden with respect to sealing.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182. Dkt. No. 250-19 Exh. A-17 GRANTED Names should remain IN PART sealed. The remainder of (Dkt. No. 239-17) AND the exhibit should not be DENIED IN sealed. PART. Dkt. No. 250-20 Exh. A-18 Entirety, See entry for A-16. DENIED. (Dkt. No. 239-18)
Dkt. No. 250-21 Exh. A-19 GRANTED Names should remain IN PART sealed. The remainder of (Dkt. No. 239-19) AND the exhibit should not be DENIED IN sealed. PART. Dkt. No. 250-22 Exh. A-20 GRANTED Names should remain IN PART sealed. The remainder of (Dkt. No. 239-20) AND the exhibit should not be DENIED IN sealed. PART. Dkt. No. 250-23 Exh. A-21 GRANTED Names should remain IN PART sealed. The remainder of (Dkt. No. 239-21) AND the exhibit should not be DENIED IN sealed. PART. Dkt. No. 250-24 Exh. A-22 GRANTED Names should remain IN PART sealed. The remainder of (Dkt. No. 239-22) AND the exhibit should not be DENIED IN sealed. Dkt. No. 250-25 Exh. A-26 Entirety, See entry for A-16. DENIED. Dkt. No. 250-26 Exh. A-27 GRANTED Names should remain IN PART sealed. The remainder of (Dkt. No. 239-27) AND the exhibit should not be DENIED IN sealed. PART. Dkt. No. 250-27 Exh. A-28 GRANTED Names should remain IN PART sealed. The remainder of (Dkt. No. 239-28) AND the exhibit should not be DENIED IN sealed. PART. Dkt. No. 250-28 Exh. A-29 Entirety, Meta has not DENIED. demonstrated why this (Dkt. No. 239-29) exhibit warrants sealing. “The judge need not document compelling reasons to unseal; rather the proponent of sealing bears the burden with respect to sealing.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182. Dkt. No. 250-29 Exh. A-30 Entirety, See entry for Exh. A-29. (Dkt. No. 239-30) Dkt. No. 250-30 Exh. A-31 GRANTED Names should remain IN PART sealed. The remainder of (Dkt. No. 239-31) AND the exhibit should not be DENIED IN sealed. Dkt. No. 250-31 Exh. A-32 Entirety, See entry for Exh. A-29. (Dkt. No. 239-32)
Dkt. No. 250-32 Exh. A-33 Entirety, See entry for Exh. A-29. DENIED. (Dkt. No. 239-33)
Dkt. No. 250-33 Exh. A-34 GRANTED Names should remain IN PART sealed. The remainder of (Dkt. No. 239-34) AND the exhibit should not be DENIED IN sealed. PART. Dkt. No. 250-34 Exh. A-35 Entirety, See entry for Exh. A-29. DENIED. (Dkt. No. 239-35) Dkt. No. 250-35 Exh. A-40 Entirety, Meta has not DENIED. demonstrated why this (Dkt. No. 239-40) exhibit warrants sealing. “The judge need not document compelling reasons to unseal; rather the proponent of sealing bears the burden with respect to sealing.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182. Dkt. No. 250-36 Exh. A-41 Entirety, See entry for Exh. A-40. (Dkt. No. 239-41)
Dkt. No. 250-37 Exh. A-42 Entirety, See entry for Exh. A-40. DENIED. (Dkt. No. 239-42)
Dkt. No. 250-38 Exh. A-49 GRANTED Names should remain IN PART sealed. The remainder of (Dkt. No. 240-7) AND the exhibit should not be DENIED IN sealed. PART. Dkt. No. 250-39 Exh. A-50 GRANTED Names should remain IN PART sealed. The remainder of (Dkt. No. 240-8) AND the exhibit should not be DENIED IN sealed. PART. Dkt. No. 240-40 Exh. A-51 GRANTED Names should remain IN PART sealed. The remainder of (Dkt. No. 240-9) AND the exhibit should not be DENIED IN sealed. PART. Dkt. No. 250-41 Exh. A-52 GRANTED Names should remain IN PART sealed. The remainder of (Dkt. No. 240-10) AND the exhibit should not be DENIED IN sealed. PART. Dkt. No. Exhibit Page and Result
(Pub. Dkt. No.)
Dkt. No. 254-9 Exh. A-60 Page 123 • Lines 4-11: DENIED. The (Dkt. No. 241-5) Dawn Dangaard highlighted text speaks to one Dep. Tr. of plaintiff’s main arguments, (Mar. 20, 2024) and Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing.
Page 146 • Lines 24-25: DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DAWN DANGAARD, et al., Plaintiffs, No. 22-01101 WHA
v. ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL INSTAGRAM, LLC, et al., [DKT. NOS. 250, 254] Defendants.
This order addresses motions to seal (Dkt. Nos. 250, 254) that stem from plaintiffs’ opposition to Meta’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 251). The public enjoys the right to know to whom the public courts provide relief (or not). Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–80 (9th Cir. 2006). Filings “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only for “compelling reasons.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101–02 (9th Cir.). That “standard applies to most judicial records,” with a “good cause” standard applying otherwise. Id. at 1098. Parties seeking to seal filings in this district must also follow basic rules, Civil L.R. 79-5. Plaintiffs filed several exhibits with their opposition to Meta’s motion for summary judgment. Meta moves to seal either parts of or entire exhibits that were attached to plaintiffs’ opposition brief. Meta also moves to seal portions of plaintiffs’ brief itself. This order rules as follows: Sealed Dkt. No. Document/ Result Reasoning Exhibit (Pub. Dkt. No.)
Dkt. No. 250-3 Exh. A-1 Entirety, Meta argues that this DENIED. exhibit should remain (Dkt. No. 239-1) under seal because it is irrelevant to the ultimate issue of the action. While this may be true, Meta still has not met the lesser standard of good cause. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097. Dkt. No. 250-4 Exh. A-2 Entirety, This information is DENIED. readily available in the (Dkt. No. 239-2) public record and does not warrant sealing. Dkt. No. 250-5 Exh. A-3 GRANTED Names and email IN PART addresses belong to (Dkt. No. 239-3) AND individuals who are not DENIED IN named in this suit and PART. thus warrants sealing. The content of the email, however, should not be sealed. Nor has Meta demonstrated otherwise. Dkt. No. 250-6 Exh. A-4 GRANTED See entry for Exh. A-3. (Dkt. No. 239-4) AND PART. Dkt. No. 250-7 Exh. A-5 GRANTED See entry for Exh. A-3. IN PART (Dkt. No. 239-5) AND PART. Dkt. No. 250-8 Exh. A-6 Entirety, Meta has not DENIED. demonstrated why this (Dkt. No. 239-6) exhibit warrants sealing. “The judge need not document compelling reasons to unseal; rather the proponent of sealing bears the burden with respect to sealing.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at Dkt. No. 250-9 Exh. A-7 GRANTED Names should remain IN PART sealed. The remainder of (Dkt. No. 239-7). AND the exhibit should not be DENIED IN sealed. Dkt. No. 250-10 Exh. A-8 Entirety, Meta has not DENIED. demonstrated why this (Dkt. No. 239-8). exhibit warrants sealing. “The judge need not document compelling reasons to unseal; rather the proponent of sealing bears the burden with respect to sealing.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182. Dkt. No. 250-11 Exh. A-9 Entirety, See entry for Exh. A-8. DENIED. (Dkt. No. 239-9)
Dkt. No. 250-12 Exh. A-10 GRANTED Names should remain IN PART sealed. The remainder of (Dkt. No. 239-10) AND the exhibit should not be DENIED IN sealed. PART. Dkt. No. 250-13 Exh. A-11 GRANTED Names should remain IN PART sealed. The remainder of (Dkt. No. 239-11) AND the exhibit should not be DENIED IN sealed. PART. Dkt. No. 250- 14 Exh. A-12 Entirety, See entry for Exh. A-8. DENIED. (Dkt. No. 239-12)
Dkt. No. 250- 15 Exh. A-13 Entirety, See entry for Exh. A-8. (Dkt. No. 239-13) Dkt. No. 250-16 Exh. A-14 Entirety, See entry for Exh. A-8. DENIED. (Dkt. No. 239-14)
Dkt. No. 250-17 Exh. A-15 GRANTED Names and email IN PART addresses belong to (Dkt. No. 239-15) AND individuals who are not DENIED IN named in this suit and The content of the email and messages, however, should not be sealed. Nor has Meta demonstrated otherwise. Dkt. No. 250-18 Exh. A-16 Entirety, Meta has not DENIED. demonstrated why this (Dkt. No. 239-16) exhibit warrants sealing. “The judge need not document compelling reasons to unseal; rather the proponent of sealing bears the burden with respect to sealing.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182. Dkt. No. 250-19 Exh. A-17 GRANTED Names should remain IN PART sealed. The remainder of (Dkt. No. 239-17) AND the exhibit should not be DENIED IN sealed. PART. Dkt. No. 250-20 Exh. A-18 Entirety, See entry for A-16. DENIED. (Dkt. No. 239-18)
Dkt. No. 250-21 Exh. A-19 GRANTED Names should remain IN PART sealed. The remainder of (Dkt. No. 239-19) AND the exhibit should not be DENIED IN sealed. PART. Dkt. No. 250-22 Exh. A-20 GRANTED Names should remain IN PART sealed. The remainder of (Dkt. No. 239-20) AND the exhibit should not be DENIED IN sealed. PART. Dkt. No. 250-23 Exh. A-21 GRANTED Names should remain IN PART sealed. The remainder of (Dkt. No. 239-21) AND the exhibit should not be DENIED IN sealed. PART. Dkt. No. 250-24 Exh. A-22 GRANTED Names should remain IN PART sealed. The remainder of (Dkt. No. 239-22) AND the exhibit should not be DENIED IN sealed. Dkt. No. 250-25 Exh. A-26 Entirety, See entry for A-16. DENIED. Dkt. No. 250-26 Exh. A-27 GRANTED Names should remain IN PART sealed. The remainder of (Dkt. No. 239-27) AND the exhibit should not be DENIED IN sealed. PART. Dkt. No. 250-27 Exh. A-28 GRANTED Names should remain IN PART sealed. The remainder of (Dkt. No. 239-28) AND the exhibit should not be DENIED IN sealed. PART. Dkt. No. 250-28 Exh. A-29 Entirety, Meta has not DENIED. demonstrated why this (Dkt. No. 239-29) exhibit warrants sealing. “The judge need not document compelling reasons to unseal; rather the proponent of sealing bears the burden with respect to sealing.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182. Dkt. No. 250-29 Exh. A-30 Entirety, See entry for Exh. A-29. (Dkt. No. 239-30) Dkt. No. 250-30 Exh. A-31 GRANTED Names should remain IN PART sealed. The remainder of (Dkt. No. 239-31) AND the exhibit should not be DENIED IN sealed. Dkt. No. 250-31 Exh. A-32 Entirety, See entry for Exh. A-29. (Dkt. No. 239-32)
Dkt. No. 250-32 Exh. A-33 Entirety, See entry for Exh. A-29. DENIED. (Dkt. No. 239-33)
Dkt. No. 250-33 Exh. A-34 GRANTED Names should remain IN PART sealed. The remainder of (Dkt. No. 239-34) AND the exhibit should not be DENIED IN sealed. PART. Dkt. No. 250-34 Exh. A-35 Entirety, See entry for Exh. A-29. DENIED. (Dkt. No. 239-35) Dkt. No. 250-35 Exh. A-40 Entirety, Meta has not DENIED. demonstrated why this (Dkt. No. 239-40) exhibit warrants sealing. “The judge need not document compelling reasons to unseal; rather the proponent of sealing bears the burden with respect to sealing.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182. Dkt. No. 250-36 Exh. A-41 Entirety, See entry for Exh. A-40. (Dkt. No. 239-41)
Dkt. No. 250-37 Exh. A-42 Entirety, See entry for Exh. A-40. DENIED. (Dkt. No. 239-42)
Dkt. No. 250-38 Exh. A-49 GRANTED Names should remain IN PART sealed. The remainder of (Dkt. No. 240-7) AND the exhibit should not be DENIED IN sealed. PART. Dkt. No. 250-39 Exh. A-50 GRANTED Names should remain IN PART sealed. The remainder of (Dkt. No. 240-8) AND the exhibit should not be DENIED IN sealed. PART. Dkt. No. 240-40 Exh. A-51 GRANTED Names should remain IN PART sealed. The remainder of (Dkt. No. 240-9) AND the exhibit should not be DENIED IN sealed. PART. Dkt. No. 250-41 Exh. A-52 GRANTED Names should remain IN PART sealed. The remainder of (Dkt. No. 240-10) AND the exhibit should not be DENIED IN sealed. PART. Dkt. No. Exhibit Page and Result
(Pub. Dkt. No.)
Dkt. No. 254-9 Exh. A-60 Page 123 • Lines 4-11: DENIED. The (Dkt. No. 241-5) Dawn Dangaard highlighted text speaks to one Dep. Tr. of plaintiff’s main arguments, (Mar. 20, 2024) and Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing.
Page 146 • Lines 24-25: DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing.
Page 147 • Lines 1-4: DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing. • Lines 9-10: DENIED. The name which appears in these lines also appears else where in the transcript unredacted. • Lines 15-25: DENIED. These lines speak to plaintiffs’ main arguments, and Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing.
Page 148 • Lines 1-2: DENIED. These lines speak to one of plaintiffs’ main argument, and Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing.
Page 155 • Lines 16-25: DENIED. These lines speak to one of plaintiffs’ main argument, and Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing.
Page 156 • Lines 1-9: DENIED. These lines speak to one of plaintiffs’ not met its burden to justify sealing. • Lines 11-16: DENIED. These lines speak to one of plaintiffs’ main argument, and Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing.
Page 169 • Lines 16-21: DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing.
Page 181 • Lines 15-25: DENIED. These lines speak to one of plaintiffs’ main argument, and Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing.
Dkt. No. 254-10 Exh. A-60 Page 231 • Lines 4-7: DENIED. This is a (Dkt. No. 241-5) Dawn Dangaard question asked by counsel and Dep. Tr. does not reveal any (Mar. 20, 2024) information. • Lines 9-15: DENIED. These lines speak to an argument raised in plaintiffs’ opposition to Meta’s motion for summary judgment. Because the argument is raised in briefing for a dispositive motion, these lines should remain unsealed. Page 232 • Line 4: DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing.
Page 233 • Lines 3-6: DENIED. This is a question asked by counsel and does not reveal any information.
Page 246: • Lines 2-19: DENIED. These main arguments regarding Meta’s treatment of content which originates from OnlyFans. • Lines 21-25: DENIED, for the same reason as lines 2-19. Page 247 • Line 1: DENIED. These lines speak to one of plaintiffs’ main arguments regarding Meta’s treatment of content which originates from OnlyFans. • Lines 7-8: DENIED, for the same reason as line 1. • Lines 18-22: DENIED, for the same reason as line 1.
Page 251 • Lines 13-16: DENIED. The information discussed in these lines is discussed in the following lines, which are unredacted.
Page 253 • Lines 17-22: DENIED. These lines speak to one of plaintiffs’ main arguments regarding Meta’s treatment of content which originates from OnlyFans.
Page 254 • Lines 1-4: DENIED. These lines speak to one of plaintiffs’ main arguments regarding Meta’s treatment of content which originates from OnlyFans. • Lines 6-14: DENIED, for the same reason as lines 1-4. Page 255 • Lines 21-25: DENIED. These lines speak to plaintiffs’ central argument regarding whether have been included on the DOI List by Meta. Page 256 • Lines 1-25: DENIED. These lines speak to plaintiffs’ central argument regarding whether they or other adult performers have been included on the DOI List by Meta.
Sealed Dkt. No. Document/ Result Reasoning Exhibit (Pub. Dkt. No.) Dkt. No. 250-43 Exh. A-61 Entirety, The document appears to be GRANTED. attorney work product prepared in (Dkt. No. 241-6) connection with this action. Dkt. No. 250-44 Exh. A-62 Entirety, See entry for Exh. A-61. GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 241-7)
Dkt. No. 250-47 Exh. A-69 GRANTED IN Names should remain sealed. The PART AND remainder of the exhibit should (Dkt. No. 246-2) DENIED IN PART. not be sealed. Dkt. No. Exhibit Page and Result
(Pub. Dkt. No.)
Dkt. No. 254-12 Exh. A-63 • Page 20: proposed redactions are (Dkt. No. 241-8). DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to Kelly Gilbert Dep. Tr. justify sealing. (Mar. 15, 2024) • Page 22: proposed redactions are DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing.
• Page 36: proposed redactions are DENIED. This line involves a central issue in this case, which is use of the GIFTCT. DENIED. This line speaks to a central issue in this action which was the allegedly disproportionate actioning of non-OnlyFans adult entertainers. • Page 61: proposed redactions are DENIED. These lines speak to plaintiffs’ central allegations in this action. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing. • Page 68: proposed redactions are DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing.
• Page 74: proposed redactions are DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing.
• Page 108: proposed redactions are DENIED. These lines speak to plaintiffs’ central allegations. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing.
• Page 109: proposed redactions are DENIED. These lines speak to plaintiffs’ central allegations. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing.
• Page 136: proposed redactions are DENIED. These lines speak to plaintiffs’ central allegations in this action. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing.
• Pag 137: proposed redactions are DENIED. These lines speak to plaintiffs’ central allegations in this action. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing. • Page 138: proposed redactions are DENIED. These lines speak to plaintiffs’ central allegations in this action. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing. • Page 139: proposed redactions are DENIED. These lines speak to plaintiffs’ central allegations in this action. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing. • Page 148: proposed redactions are DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing.
• Page 151: proposed redactions are DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing.
• Page 153: proposed redactions are DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing. • Page 190: proposed redactions are DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing.
• Page 196: proposed redactions are DENIED. These lines speak to plaintiffs’ central allegations in this action. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing.
Dkt. No. 254-13 Exh. A-63 • Page 205: proposed redactions are DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to (Dkt. No. 241-8) Kelly Gilbert Dep. Tr. justify sealing. (Mar. 15, 2024) • Page 206: proposed redactions are DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing. • Page 231: proposed redactions are DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing.
• Page 236: proposed redactions are DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing.
• Page 267: proposed redactions are DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing. • Page 268: proposed redactions are DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing.
• Page 298: proposed redactions are D . These lines speak to plaintiffs’ has not met its burden to justify sealing.
Dkt. No. 254-15 Exh. A-67 • Page 114: proposed redactions are DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to (Dkt. No. 243-1) Jennifer Allbaugh Dep. justify sealing. Tr. (Mar. 15, 2024) • Page 115: proposed redactions are DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing. • Page 146: proposed redactions are DENIED. These lines speak to plaintiffs’ central allegations in this action. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing. • Page 149: proposed redactions are DENIED. These lines speak to plaintiffs’ central allegations in this action. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing.
• Page 207: proposed redactions are DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing. Dkt. No. 254-16 Exh. A-67 • Page 247: proposed redactions are DENIED. These lines speak to plaintiffs’ (Dkt. No. 243-1) Jennifer Allbaugh Dep. central allegations in this action. Meta Tr. has not met its burden to justify sealing. (Mar. 15, 2024) • Page 248: proposed redactions are DENIED. These lines speak to plaintiffs’ central allegations in this action. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing.
• Page 281: proposed redactions are DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing. This order will now turn to the last three sets of proposed redactions by Meta. First, Meta seeks to redact portions of plaintiffs’ opposition brief to Meta’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 250-51). To be clear, given that plaintiff’s opposition relates to a dispositive motion, Meta must meet its burden under the “compelling reason” standard. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097. This order finds that Meta has not met its burden. Meta’s states that some of these materials are “competitively sensitive” which would cause harm or 1 2,4). But Meta’s contentions are vague at best. Nowhere does Meta explain how these 2 statements would cause harm. As such, Meta’s boilerplate language does not meet the 3 “compelling reason” standard. Therefore, Meta’s proposed redactions of plaintiffs’ opposition 4 to Meta’s motion summary judgment is DENIED. 5 Second, Meta seeks to redact portions of plaintiff Jennifer Allbaugh’s declaration 6 attached to plaintiffs’ opposition to Meta’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 250-49). 7 Here, Meta must also meet the “compelling reason” standard. Meta argues that Allbaugh’s 8 declaration is irrelevant to the ultimate issues of the case and that it seeks to promote public 9 scandal (Dkt. No. 254 at 5). This order finds, however, Meta’s contentions farfetched. In fact, 10 Meta does not seek to redact the paragraph of Allbaugh’s declaration which could actually be 11 construed as spiteful (Dkt. No. 250-49 § 53). And after reviewing the rest of Meta’s proposed 12 redactions, this order finds that none of them warrant sealing. As such, Meta’s proposed 13 redactions of Allbaugh’s declaration is DENIED. 14 Third, Meta seeks to redact portions of plaintiff Kelly Gilbert’s declaration attached to 3 15 plaintiffs’ opposition to Meta’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 250-50). Meta offers a 16 no specific reason as to why Gilbert’s declaration requires redactions. Nor does Meta’s 3 17 boilerplate language meet its burden under the “compelling standard” requirement. As such, 18 Meta’s proposed redactions of Gilbert’s declaration is DENIED. 19 The movant shall file public versions of the aforementioned documents in full 20 compliance with this order by JANUARY 31, 2025, AT NOON. 22 23 Dated: December 12, 2024.
[A 25 — 26 ILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28