Forrest v. Platforms

Background

Meta Platforms, Inc. filed an administrative motion to close the courtroom during an October 21, 2025 hearing concerning the parties’ supplemental joint discovery-dispute letter. Andrew Forrest opposed the motion. He argued that the letter contained only some confidential material and that less restrictive alternatives to closing the courtroom were available. He also asked that the hearing at least be conducted in a way that would allow his in-house counsel to attend.

Court’s analysis

Because the motion concerned discovery, the court applied the good-cause standard. Meta said the dispute involved nonpublic information about the design, mechanics, and contents of its data-storage systems and repositories, including sensitive advertising data and information about the proprietary production tool used to obtain that data.

The court found good cause to conduct the hearing under seal. It anticipated that the hearing would include material marked Confidential and Highly Confidential—Attorneys’ Eyes Only. The court said it would be impractical to interrupt the hearing for separate sidebar proceedings each time protected material was mentioned. It also found no need for Forrest’s in-house counsel to participate or even attend and declined to structure the hearing solely to accommodate that counsel.

Ruling

The court granted Meta’s motion to conduct the October 21, 2025 discovery hearing under seal. If the parties ordered a transcript, the court would require them to confer about redactions so that a public version could be filed on the docket and another version could be shared with people allowed to access Confidential information but not Highly Confidential—Attorneys’ Eyes Only information. The order addressed courtroom access and transcript handling, not the merits of the underlying discovery dispute.