Klein v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 MAXIMILIAN KLEIN, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD

6 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL v. 7

8 META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendant. 9

10 11 The Court has addressed the standards for sealing requests in conjunction with case filings, 12 see In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation, 556 F. Supp. 3d 1106 (N.D. Cal. 2021), and that 13 decision is incorporated here. In pertinent summary, “judicial records are public documents 14 almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by default.” Id. at 1107 (quoting 15 Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Center 16 for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (when considering a 17 request to seal, “we start with a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.”) 18 (quotation omitted)). The party seeking to seal a document bears the burden of articulating 19 “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of 20 access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. (quotation and citation omitted). General 21 assertions of potential competitive or commercial harm are not enough to establish good cause for 22 sealing court records, and the “fact that the parties may have designated a document as 23 confidential under a stipulated protective order is also not enough to justify sealing.” Id. (citation 24 omitted). 25 Plaintiffs and defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. (Meta), filed sealing motions in connection 26 with the first amended consolidated advertiser class action complaint (FAC), Dkt. No. 236, motion 27 to dismiss briefing, Dkt. Nos. 261, 270, 284, and discovery letter briefs, Dkt. Nos. 280, 323. As 1 obtained during discovery that had been designated as confidential under the protective order 2 entered in this case. See Dkt. No. 236-1; Dkt. No. 270-1; Dkt. No. 280-1; Dkt. No. 323-1. Civil 3 Local Rule 79-5 required Meta , the party that produced the documents, to state why they should 4 || be sealed, and propose ways of tailoring sealing to the narrowest possible scope. Meta filed 5 declarations to state why the documents it produced should be sealed. See Dkt. No. 244; Dkt. No. 6 278; Dkt. No. 284; Dkt. No. 285; Dkt. No. 326. 7 For Meta’s proposed redactions in the FAC and motion to dismiss briefing, Meta says that 8 information disclosed in the documents should be redacted because it contains details about 9 contract terms and negotiations, and their disclosure would put Meta and its counterparties at a 10 || competitive disadvantage. Dkt. No. 244-1; Dkt. No. 284-1. Meta has met its burden for a small 11 subset of the information it seeks to redact, and the specific sealing determinations are stated in the 12 || attached chart. See Ex. A. The Court grants sealing for portions that expressly quote contract 5 13 terms. The Court declines to redact general descriptions of the agreement that the parties to a 14 || contract reached. 3 15 For the proposed redactions to the discovery letter briefs, Meta seeks to redact only non- 16 || officer employee names and email addresses. Dkt. No. 326. Meta says that disclosure of the 3 17 information would be an invasion of privacy for the individual employees. Jd. The redactions of 18 || email addresses are narrowly tailored and meet the standard for sealing. 19 The “default posture of public access prevails” for the documents that the Court declines to 20 seal. In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation, 556 F. Supp. 3d at 1107 (quoting Kamakana, 21 447 F.3d at 1182). Plaintiffs and Meta are directed to file a revised redacted version of the FAC 22 and discovery letter briefs, and unredacted versions of the motion to dismiss briefing on ECF 23 within seven court days of this order. Civil L.R. 79-5(f). 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: August 31, 2022 26 7 JAMES JPONATO- United Jtates District Judge 28

1 EXHIBIT A TO ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL 2 Document Information sought Proffered Reason for Ruling to be sealed Sealing 3 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 4 First Paragraphs 441-452, Contains non-public Granted in part. The 5 Amended 454, 455, 458-61, 463 information about language in paragraphs Complaint negotiations of a 441, 449, 451-452, 458 6 confidential agreement may be sealed because it 7 concerning Meta’s reveals specific terms for non-use of certain negotiation, which would 8 data. Disclosure potentially harm Meta’s would adversely competitive standing. 9 impact Meta’s ability Denied for paragraphs 442- 10 to negotiate similar 448, 450, 454, 455, 459- agreements in the 461, 463. 11 future. (See Dkt. No. 244-1 ¶ 6) 12 First Table of Contents, Contains non-public Granted in part. The 13 Amended Paragraphs 10, 436- information about language in paragraphs Complaint 438, 464-472 terms of a confidential 464-468 may be sealed 14 agreement concerning because it reveals specific 15 Meta’s non-use of terms in a contract, which certain data. would which would 16 Disclosure would potentially harm Meta’s adversely impact Meta competitive standing. 17 and the counterparty’s Denied for Table of ability to negotiate contents and paragraphs 10, 18 similar agreements in 436-438, and 469-472. 19 the future. (See Dkt. No. 244-1 ¶ 7) 20 First Paragraphs 9, 500-502, Contains non-public Granted in part. The 21 Amended 509-524, 530, 531, information about the language in paragraph 510 Complaint 534, 535 terms of confidential may be sealed because it 22 agreements concerning reveals specific terms in a 23 Meta’s use of data to contract, which would inform content potentially harm Meta’s 24 development competitive standing. decisions. Disclosure Denied for paragraphs 9, 25 would impact Meta’s 500-502, 509, 511-524, ability to negotiate 530, 531, 534, 535. 26 future agreements. 27 (See Dkt. No. 244-1 ¶ 8) 1 Document Information sought Proffered Reason for Ruling to be sealed Sealing 2 First Paragraphs 440, 456, Contains non-public Denied. 3 Amended 463, 485, 486, 503 information about Complaint advertising sales, 4 including information 5 about advertising revenues. Disclosure 6 could create a competitive 7 disadvantage for Meta. (See Dkt. No. 244-1 8 ¶ 9) 9 MOTION TO DISMISS BRIEFING 10 Meta’s 11:8-9 Contains non-public Denied. 11 Motion to information about Dismiss, Dkt. terms of a confidential 12 No. 262 agreement concerning Meta’s non-use of 13 certain data and use of other data to inform 14 content development 15 decisions. Disclosure could create a 16 competitive disadvantage for Meta 17 and its counterparty in 18 negotiations. (See Dkt. No. 284-1 ¶¶ 6-7) 19 Advertiser 5:10-12, 6:16-19, Contains non-public Denied. 20 Plaintiffs’ 12:21-24 information about Opposition to terms of a confidential 21 Meta’s agreement concerning Motion to Meta’s non-use of 22 Dismiss, Dkt. certain data and use of 23 No. 271 other data to inform content development 24 decisions. Disclosure could create a 25 competitive disadvantage for Meta 26 and its counterparty in 27 negotiations. (See Dkt. No. 284-1 ¶¶ 6-7) 1 Document Information sought Proffered Reason for Ruling to be sealed Sealing 2 DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEFS 3 Discovery Materials were Denied. 4 Letter Brief, redacted because they April 21, were marked as 5 2022, Dkt. “Confidential,” or 6 No. 281 “Highly Confidential,” during production, but 7 Meta represents that it does not seek for any 8 portions of the document to be sealed. 9 (See Dkt. No. 280-1 10 ¶ 3; Dkt. No. 285) 11 Discovery Redacted current and Employee names and Granted in part. There is Letter Brief, former non-officer email addresses should a sufficient privacy interest 12 July 27, 2022, employee names and be redacted to protect in keeping the email Dkt. No. 322 email addresses on the individuals’ addresses of employees 13 page 2. privacy. (See Dkt. No. redacted, but their names 326) will not be redacted. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27