Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-02389/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-02389-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

10-cv-02389-RMW

ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: FACEBOOK PRIVACY 

LITIGATION Case No. 10-cv-02389-RMW 

ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 148, 149, 155, 160, 176, 188, 

202

Before the court are five administrative motions to seal documents.1 Dkt. Nos. 148, 155, 

176, 188, and 202. For the reasons set forth below, the motions are GRANTED-IN-PART and 

DENIED-IN-PART.

I. LEGAL STANDARD FOR MOTIONS TO SEAL

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & County of 

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 

U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 

 1 A sixth, Dkt. No. 149, is DENIED as moot because plaintiff withdrew and re-filed the document 

with additional redactions. Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to remove these incorrectly filed 

documents is GRANTED. See Dkt. No. 160.

Case 5:10-cv-02389-RMW Document 235 Filed 06/29/15 Page 1 of 8
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 

dispositive motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” 

that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Id. at 1178-

79.

However, “while protecting the public’s interest in access to the courts, we must remain 

mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm 

their competitive interest.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 

(Fed. Cir. 2013).

Pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a trial court has broad 

discretion to permit sealing of court documents for, inter alia, the protection of “a trade secret or 

other confidential research, development, or commercial information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(c)(1)(G). The Ninth Circuit has adopted the definition of “trade secrets” set forth in the 

Restatement of Torts, holding that “[a] trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or 

compilation of information which is used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to 

obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it.” Clark v. Bunker, 453 F.2d 1006, 

1009 (9th Cir. 1972) (quoting Restatement of Torts § 757, cmt. b). “Generally it relates to the 

production of goods. . . . It may, however, relate to the sale of goods or to other operations in the 

business. . . .” Id. In addition, the Supreme Court has recognized that sealing may be justified to 

prevent judicial documents from being used “as sources of business information that might harm a 

litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.

In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal 

documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L. R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L. 

R. 79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is 

“sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under 

the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and 

must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b) (requiring the submitting party to attach 

a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” which “lists in table 

format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” and an “unreadacted version 

Case 5:10-cv-02389-RMW Document 235 Filed 06/29/15 Page 2 of 8
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

of the document” that indicates “by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the 

document that have been omitted from the redacted version.”).

With these standards in mind, the courts rules on the instant motions as follows.

II. SEALING ORDER

Motion 

to Seal

Document to be Sealed Ruling Reason/Explanation

148 Dkt. No. 148-4. Portions of the 

January 30, 2015 letter from 

Defendant Facebook Inc.’s 

(“Defendant” or “Facebook”) counsel 

Matthew Brown to Plaintiff’s interim 

co-lead class counsel Kassra P. Nassiri

GRANTED Narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information.

148 Dkt. No. 148-5. Defendant’s 

document Bates numbered as 

FB_ROB_0003292_CONFIDENTIAL

GRANTED Narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information.

148 Dkt. Nos. 148-6, 161. Portions of the 

transcript of former Plaintiff Mike 

Robertson’s March 11, 2015 

deposition

DENIED Docket No. 148-6 was 

replaced by Docket No. 161, 

which plaintiff seeks to seal 

in its entirety. Plaintiff’s 

request to seal Docket No. 

161 is denied as it is not 

narrowly tailored.

148 Dkt. No. 148-9. Portions of the March 

17, 2015 letter from Defendant’s 

counsel Matthew Brown

DENIED Because the information 

plaintiff seeks to seal is 

publicly available and not 

confidential, the motion to 

seal is denied.

148 Dkt. No. 148-10. Defendant’s 

Response to Plaintiff ’s First Set of 

Interrogatories dated March 25, 2015

DENIED Plaintiff filed under seal out 

of an abundance of caution, 

and defendant suggests 

sealing the names of two 

Facebook engineers. The 

motion to file under seal is 

denied as the document 

contains no sealable 

information.

148 Dkt. No. 148-11. Portions of a letter 

from Plaintiff’s counsel Adam York to 

Defendant’s counsel Matthew Brown 

dated January 23, 2015

GRANTED Narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information.

148 Dkt. No. 148-13. Defendant’s Second 

Supplemental Responses to former 

Plaintiff Mike Robertson’s First Set of 

Interrogatories to Defendant dated 

March 17, 2015

GRANTED Plaintiff filed the document 

under seal in its entirety 

because plaintiff asserts that 

defendant designated the 

information contained 

Case 5:10-cv-02389-RMW Document 235 Filed 06/29/15 Page 3 of 8
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

therein confidential under the 

protective order in this case. 

Defendant filed proposed 

redactions of confidential 

business information. See

Dkt. No. 154-3. Because 

defendant’s proposed 

redactions are narrowly 

tailored to confidential 

business information, the 

court grants the motion to 

seal as to the following 

pages: 2:20, 4:22, 4:23, 6:16, 

and 6:17.

148 Dkt. No. 148-14. Defendant’s 

Response to Plaintiff’s First Set of 

Requests for Production of Documents 

dated March 25, 2015

DENIED Plaintiff filed under seal out 

of an abundance of caution, 

but defendant states that 

Docket No. 148-14 contains 

no sealable information.

148 Dkt. No. 148-15. Defendant’s Second 

Supplemental Responses to former 

Plaintiff Mike Robertson’s First Set of 

Requests for Admission to Defendant 

dated March 17, 2015

GRANTED Plaintiff filed the document 

under seal in its entirety 

because plaintiff asserts that 

defendant designated the 

information contained 

therein confidential under the 

protective order in this case. 

Defendant filed proposed 

redactions of confidential 

business information. See

Dkt. No. 154-5. Because 

defendant’s proposed 

redactions are narrowly 

tailored to confidential 

business information, the 

court grants the motion to 

seal as to the following 

pages: 10:19–20, 10:24–26, 

and 12:18–21.

148 Dkt. No. 148-17. Portions of 

Plaintiff’s interim co-lead class 

counsel Kassra P. Nassiri’s letter dated 

March 19, 2015

GRANTED Narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information.

148 Dkt. No. 148-19. Portions of 

Plaintiff’s interim co-lead class 

counsel Kassra P. Nassiri’s Meet and 

Confer e-mail to Mr. Brown dated 

March 20, 2015

GRANTED-INPART, 

DENIED-INPART: denied 

as to 

Robertson’s 

The information regarding 

Robertson’s former 

employers is publicly 

available and not 

confidential, and therefore 

the motion to seal is denied 

Case 5:10-cv-02389-RMW Document 235 Filed 06/29/15 Page 4 of 8
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

former 

employers, 

granted as to 

rest.

as to such information. The 

other proposed redaction is 

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information and is therefore 

granted.

148 Dkt. No. 148-20. Defendant’s 

Responses to former Plaintiff Mike 

Robertson’s First Request for 

Production of Documents dated 

October 14, 2014

DENIED Plaintiff filed under seal out 

of an abundance of caution, 

but defendant states that 

Docket No. 148-20 contains 

no sealable information.

148 Dkt. No. 148-22. Portions of the 

Memorandum of Points and 

Authorities in Support of Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Leave to Amend 

Complaint and to Amend Scheduling 

Order

GRANTED-INPART, 

DENIED-INPART: denied 

as to 

Robertson’s 

former 

employers, 

granted as to 

rest.

The information regarding 

Robertson’s former 

employers is publicly 

available and not 

confidential, and therefore 

the motion to seal is denied 

as to such information. The 

other proposed redactions 

(on pages i, 1, 2, 11, and 13) 

are narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information and the motion 

is granted as to these 

proposed redactions.

148 Dkt. No. 148-24. Portions of 

Plaintiff’s interim co-lead class 

counsel Kassra P. Nassiri’s declaration 

in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Leave to Amend Complaint and to 

Amend Scheduling Order

DENIED Because the information 

plaintiff seeks to seal is 

publicly available and not 

confidential, the motion to 

seal is denied.

155 Dkt. No. 155-4. Portions of the 

transcript of former Plaintiff Mike 

Robertson’s March 11, 2015 

deposition

GRANTED Plaintiff withdrew its 

proposed redactions for this 

document, see Dkt. No. 160, 

and instead sought to file the 

entire document under seal, 

see Dkt. No. 161. The court 

denied that motion above as 

not narrowly tailored. 

Defendant filed a motion to 

file this document under seal 

with more limited redactions.

Dkt. No. 155. Defendant’s 

proposed redactions are 

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information, and the motion 

is granted.

Case 5:10-cv-02389-RMW Document 235 Filed 06/29/15 Page 5 of 8
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

176 Dkt. No. 176-3. Plaintiff Robertson’s 

Objections and Responses to 

Defendant Facebook’s First Set of 

Interrogatories

GRANTED

only as to 

plaintiff’s 

proposed 

redactions at 

Dkt. No. 182-2.

Otherwise 

DENIED.

Defendant filed entire 

document under seal out of 

an abundance of caution. 

Plaintiff filed proposed 

redactions at Dkt. No. 182-2.

Plaintiff’s proposed 

redactions are narrowly 

tailored to protect plaintiff’s 

confidential information, and 

the motion to seal is 

therefore granted only as to 

these proposed redactions.

176 Dkt. No. 176-5. Plaintiff Robertson’s 

Supplemental Responses to Defendant 

Facebook’s First Set of Interrogatories

DENIED Defendant filed under seal 

out of an abundance of 

caution, but plaintiff states 

that Docket No. 176-5 

contains no sealable 

information.

176 Dkt. No. 176-7. Plaintiff Pohl’s 

Objections and Responses to 

Defendant Facebook’s First Set of 

Requests for Production of Documents

DENIED Defendant filed under seal 

out of an abundance of 

caution, but plaintiff states 

that Docket No. 176-7 

contains no sealable 

information.

176 Dkt. No. 176-9. Portions of the 

transcript of Plaintiff Pohl’s April 1, 

2015 deposition

DENIED Defendant filed under seal 

because defendant asserts 

that plaintiff designated 

Docket No. 176-9 as 

confidential pursuant to 

protective order, but plaintiff 

states that it contains no 

sealable information.

176 Dkt. No. 176-11. Defendant 

Facebook’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Leave to File Third 

Amended Consolidated Class Action 

Complaint and to Amend Scheduling 

Order

DENIED Defendant seeks to seal 

portions of plaintiff’s 

responses to discovery 

requests out of an abundance 

of caution in case the 

responses contain sensitive 

and confidential information. 

Plaintiff states that the 

document contains no such 

information other than on 

page 8, at line 4. However, 

this information is publicly 

available and not 

confidential, and so the 

motion to seal is denied.

Case 5:10-cv-02389-RMW Document 235 Filed 06/29/15 Page 6 of 8
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

188 Dkt. No. 188-3. Email correspondence 

from Defendant’s counsel to Matthew 

D. Brown

GRANTED 

only as to 

defendant’s 

proposed 

redactions at 

Dkt. No. 193.

Otherwise 

DENIED.

Plaintiff filed the entire 

document under seal, stating 

that defendant designated the 

information contained in the 

document as confidential. 

Defendant states that only 

part contains confidential 

information, and filed 

proposed redactions at Dkt. 

No. 193. Defendant’s 

proposed redactions are 

narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information and the motion 

is therefore granted as to 

these proposed redactions.

188 Dkt. No. 188-5. Portions of Plaintiff’s 

Reply in Support of her Motion to 

Compel Further Responses to 

Discovery & supporting Memorandum 

of Points & Authorities

GRANTED-INPART as to 

proposed 

redactions at 

Dkt. No. 193-2 

(1:3, 1:4,1:17, 

1:18, 5:14, 6:17, 

and 11:17) and 

DENIED-INPART as to the 

remainder.

Plaintiff seeks to seal 

portions of this document 

because it contains 

information defendant has 

designated as confidential 

business information. 

Defendant identified certain 

redactions it feels are 

necessary, and stated that the 

remainder of plaintiff’s 

proposed redactions are not 

necessary to protect 

defendant’s confidential 

information. See Dkt. No. 

193-2. Defendant’s proposed 

redactions are narrowly 

tailored to confidential 

business information and the 

motion is therefore granted 

as to these proposed 

redactions.

188 Dkt. No. 188-7. Plaintiff’s ad-click 

data produced by Facebook

GRANTED Narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information.

188 Dkt. No. 188-9. Excerpts from 

Plaintiff’s Deposition 

DENIED Plaintiff filed under seal out 

of an abundance of caution, 

but defendant states that 

Docket No. 188-9 contains 

no sealable information.

188 Dkt. No. 188-11. Defendant’s 

Supplemental Response to former 

Plaintiff Make Robertson’s First Set of 

GRANTED-INPART as to 

proposed 

Plaintiff filed the entire 

document under seal, stating 

that defendant designated the 

Case 5:10-cv-02389-RMW Document 235 Filed 06/29/15 Page 7 of 8
8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Requests for Production redactions at 

Dkt. No. 193-4 

(4:6 and 5:18) 

and DENIEDIN-PART as to 

the remainder.

information contained in the 

document as confidential. 

Defendant filed proposed 

redactions at Dkt. No. 193-4. 

Defendant’s proposed 

redactions are narrowly 

tailored to confidential 

business information and the 

motion is therefore granted 

as to these proposed 

redactions.

188 Dkt. No. 188-13. Portions of the 

Declaration of Kassra P. Nassiri in 

Support of Plaintiff’s Reply to 

Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Leave to File Amended 

Complaint and to Amend Scheduling 

Order 

DENIED Plaintiff filed under seal out 

of an abundance of caution, 

but defendant states that 

Docket No. 188-13 contains 

no sealable information.

202 Dkt. No. 202-3. Exhibit A to the 

Declaration of Kyle C. Wong in 

Support of Facebook’s Objections to 

New Evidence in Plaintiff’s Reply 

Memorandum and Reply Declaration 

in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Leave to File Amended Complaint and 

Amend Scheduling Order

GRANTED Narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information.

202 Dkt. No. 202-5. Exhibit B to the 

Declaration of Kyle C. Wong in 

Support of Facebook’s Objections to 

New Evidence in Plaintiff’s Reply 

Memorandum and Reply Declaration 

in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Leave to File Amended Complaint and 

Amend Scheduling Order

GRANTED Narrowly tailored to 

confidential business 

information.

The parties shall file documents with updated redactions in accordance with this order by 

July 9, 2015. Any objections or motions for reconsideration must also be filed by July 9, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 29, 2015

______________________________________

Ronald M. Whyte

United States District Judge

Case 5:10-cv-02389-RMW Document 235 Filed 06/29/15 Page 8 of 8