Compass, Inc. v. Zillow, Inc., Zillow Group, Inc., and Trulia, LLC

Background

Compass filed a redacted motion asking the court to compel third-party Redfin Corporation to produce three documents in response to Compass’s subpoenas. Two exhibits to that motion were filed under seal. Compass separately asked to redact information in the motion to compel and to keep the two exhibits under seal. Redfin filed a letter supporting the request.

Legal standard

The court described the public’s presumptive right to access judicial documents under both common law and the First Amendment. It explained that courts consider whether the material is relevant to the judicial function, how important public access is to that material, and whether competing interests—such as privacy or confidential business information—outweigh the presumption of access. When the First Amendment presumption applies, sealing must be supported by specific findings showing that it is necessary to protect a higher interest and is narrowly tailored.

Court’s analysis

After reviewing the material, the court found that Redfin had sufficiently shown that it concerned confidential business information, including an internal email exchange and deposition material. The court concluded that disclosure could cause Redfin a significant competitive disadvantage. It also stated that Compass’s motion to compel had been denied for separate jurisdictional reasons, meaning that the information was not relevant to the court’s exercise of judicial power in deciding that motion.

Disposition

The court held that protecting confidential business information outweighed the qualified First Amendment presumption of public access. It granted Compass’s motion to seal, identified as ECF No. 95, and directed the clerk to terminate that filing. The opinion does not state the separate jurisdictional reasons for denying the motion to compel.