Meta Platforms, Inc. v. BrandTotal Ltd.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 20-cv-07182-JCS

8 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO 9 v. FILE UNDER SEAL

10 BRANDTOTAL LTD., et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 245, 249, 253 Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”) filed an administrative motion to consider whether 14 its motion for discovery sanctions (dkt. 245), and documents submitted therewith, should be filed 15 under seal based on designations of confidentiality by Defendants BrandTotal Ltd. and Unimania, 16 Inc. (collectively, “BrandTotal”). The sanctions motion, which seeks (among other relief) an 17 instruction that the finder of fact at trial may presume certain facts to be true, is “more than 18 tangentially related to the merits” of the case and thus requires “compelling reasons” to maintain 19 related briefing and evidence under seal. See generally Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 20 809 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2016). BrandTotal has also moved to file under seal its motion to exclude 21 expert testimony, which BrandTotal acknowledges is governed by the “compelling reasons” 22 standard. See dkt. 249. 23 BrandTotal’s response to Facebook’s motion, a declaration by its attorney Dustin Taylor 24 (dkt. 253), does not address Meta’s proposed redactions with sufficient specificity. The proposed 25 redactions in Meta’s motion include, for example, descriptions of BrandTotal’s efforts to gather 26 documents in response to discovery requests, discussions of BrandTotal’s operations at broad 27 levels of generality, and explanations of methods that BrandTotal no longer uses to collect data. It ] explanation in BrandTotal’s responsive declaration, however, the Court is limited in its ability to 2 || make an informed judgment as to what actually warrants sealing. 3 BrandTotal also provided a declaration by Taylor in support of its own motion to seal its 4 || Daubert motion, see dkt. 249-1, in addition to noting that Facebook designated the documents at 5 issue in that motion as confidential. Taylor’s declaration includes conclusory assertions of 6 || confidentiality, without specifying the portions of the expert reports that include BrandTotal’s (as 7 || opposed to Facebook’s) confidential information. Absent an extraordinary showing of need, the 8 Court does not intend to seal in their entirety the expert reports at issue for the parties’ Daubert 9 || motions. 10 BrandTotal is therefore ORDERED to provide a second declaration with respect to each of 11 these motions no later than March 9, 2022 narrowing its requests to seal and providing a more 12 || detailed explanation as to why sealing is necessary. To allow the parties to take into account the 13 Court’s position stated in this order, the deadline for each party’s response to its opponent’s 14 || motion to consider whether material related to the Daubert motions should be filed under seal is 3 15 CONTINUED to the same date. 16 IT ISSO ORDERED. 17 || Dated: March 4, 2022 18 Z- CZ J PH C. SPERO 19 ief Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28