Dangaard v. Instagram, LLC

Background

This order addresses motions to seal at Docket Nos. 250 and 254. The motions arose from plaintiffs’ opposition to Meta’s motion for summary judgment. Meta sought to seal entire exhibits, portions of exhibits, deposition-transcript passages, parts of plaintiffs’ opposition brief, and portions of declarations by Jennifer Allbaugh and Kelly Gilbert.

Legal standard

The court stated that the public has a right to know what relief public courts provide. Materials more than tangentially related to the merits of a case may be sealed only for “compelling reasons.” Other judicial records may be subject to the lower “good cause” standard. The court also noted that the party seeking secrecy bears the burden of establishing the applicable standard.

Rulings on exhibits and testimony

The court denied requests to seal several exhibits in their entirety because Meta had not shown good cause or had not demonstrated why the exhibits warranted sealing. It also denied many proposed redactions to Dawn Dangaard’s deposition testimony, Kelly Gilbert’s deposition testimony, and Jennifer Allbaugh’s deposition testimony. The court found that many of the challenged passages concerned plaintiffs’ main or central arguments, including arguments about Meta’s treatment of content originating from OnlyFans, the GIFTCT, allegedly disproportionate action against non-OnlyFans adult entertainers, and whether adult performers were included on Meta’s DOI List. Other passages were denied because the information was already public, appeared elsewhere unredacted, or consisted of a question that revealed no information.

For several exhibits, the court granted in part and denied in part the sealing requests. It kept certain names sealed, and in some exhibits also kept email addresses of individuals who were not named in the suit sealed, while denying sealing for the remaining content. The court concluded that the emails and messages themselves did not warrant sealing where Meta had not shown otherwise. The court also granted in full the requests to seal Exhibits A-61 and A-62 because the documents appeared to be attorney work product prepared in connection with the action. For Exhibit A-69, the court granted in part and denied in part the request, keeping names sealed but denying sealing for the remainder.

Rulings on the brief and declarations

The court denied Meta’s proposed redactions to plaintiffs’ opposition brief. Because the brief addressed a dispositive motion, Meta had to satisfy the compelling-reasons standard. The court found Meta’s assertions of competitive sensitivity vague and unsupported by an explanation of how disclosure would cause harm.

The court also denied Meta’s proposed redactions to Allbaugh’s declaration. It found Meta’s arguments that the declaration was irrelevant or would promote public scandal unpersuasive, and found that none of the proposed redactions warranted sealing. The court denied the proposed redactions to Gilbert’s declaration because Meta offered no specific reason for them and its general assertions did not satisfy the compelling-reasons standard.

Disposition

Judge William Alsup ordered Meta to file public versions of the documents covered by the order in compliance with these rulings by January 31, 2025, at noon. This order decided sealing and public-access issues; it did not decide the underlying summary-judgment motion.