Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01730/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01730-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

ASHEVILLE DIVISION

CIVIL CASE NO. 1:15-cv-00102-MR

WINDY CITY INNOVATIONS, LLC, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

FACEBOOK, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

________________________________ )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant’s Unopposed 

Motion to Seal [Doc. 23].

The Defendant Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) moves for leave to file 

under seal its Memorandum in support of its Motion to Transfer Venue 

(“Memorandum”) and the Declaration of Jeremy Jordan (“Jordan 

Declaration”). Specifically, Facebook seeks permanent sealing of the names 

of certain Facebook employees identified on pages 3 and 13 of the 

Memorandum and in paragraphs 5 and 7 of the Jordan Declaration. The 

Plaintiff does not oppose Facebook’s motion to seal.

 The press and the public have, under both the First Amendment and 

the common law, a qualified right of access to judicial documents and 

records filed in civil and criminal proceedings. Doe v. Public Citizen, 749 

Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 27 Filed 08/29/15 Page 1 of 3
2

F.3d 246, 265 (4th Cir. 2014). “The common-law presumptive right of access 

extends to all judicial documents and records, and the presumption can be 

rebutted only by showing that ‘countervailing interests heavily outweigh the 

public interests in access.’” Id. at 265-66 (quoting in part Rushford v. New 

Yorker Magazine, Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 253 (4th Cir. 1988)). The First 

Amendment right of access “may be restricted only if closure is ‘necessitated 

by a compelling government interest’ and the denial of access is ‘narrowly 

tailored to serve that interest.’” Id. at 266 (quoting in part In re Wash. Post 

Co., 807 F.2d 383, 390 (4th Cir. 1986)). 

Here, Facebook has failed to demonstrate any interest compelling 

enough to overcome the presumptive right of public access to these 

documents, under either the First Amendment or the common law. As 

grounds for its motion, Facebook contends that sealing of these names “is 

necessary to protect confidential and sensitive business and personnel 

information concerning Facebook and its employees,” and that “[p]ublic 

knowledge of this confidential information could give competitors a distinct 

competitive advantage over Defendant and impose on the privacy of 

Facebook’s employees.” [Doc. 24 at 3]. These assertions, however, are 

entirely conclusory and speculative. The Court cannot permit the sealing of 

a document in a civil case “based on unsubstantiated or speculative claims 

Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 27 Filed 08/29/15 Page 2 of 3
3

of harm . . . .” Public Citizen, 749 F.3d at 270. Facebook offers only 

speculation that public knowledge of the identities of these Facebook 

employees could give its competitors a distinct advantage. See

Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. Alan & Kristin Hudson Farm, 278 F.R.D. 136, 

142-43 (D. Md. 2011) (denying motion to seal identities of employees where 

company claimed that competitors could use information to “poach” its 

employees; company failed to provide any “specific demonstrations of fact” 

or “concrete examples” of such conduct by its competitors). Further, 

Facebook has not shown how identifying those employees who may be 

potential witnesses in this action unduly imposes on their privacy. 

For these reasons, Facebook’s motion to seal is denied.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant’s Unopposed 

Motion to Seal [Doc. 23] is DENIED. The Defendant shall file an unredacted 

version of the Memorandum and the Jordan Declaration within five (5) days 

of the entry of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 27 Filed 08/29/15 Page 3 of 3