WhatsApp Inc. v. NSO Group Technologies Limited
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:19-cv-07123
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In WhatsApp v. NSO Group, Judge Hamilton denied without prejudice plaintiffs’ request to seal filings but permitted a narrower renewed request.
WhatsApp Inc. and Facebook, Inc., whose motion to seal was denied without prejudice; the U.S. Department of Justice, which was identified as the designating party and had to be served with the order.
What happened
In WhatsApp Inc. v. NSO Group Technologies Limited, WhatsApp and Facebook asked to seal several filings, including a motion to disqualify, related declarations, and proposed filing materials. They relied on a local rule covering documents designated confidential by a nonparty, the U.S. Department of Justice.
The court found that the Department of Justice had not filed the declaration required by that rule to support sealing. The court also found the request too broad because it sought to seal entire filings rather than only specific confidential portions, and noted the general presumption that federal court records should be public.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denied the motion to file under seal without prejudice. The plaintiffs may submit a renewed or amended motion within seven days that follows the local rules and uses narrower redactions; alternatively, they may file the documents publicly within the stated filing period.
The detailed version
- WhatsApp Inc. v. NSO Group Technologies Limited · No. 4:19-cv-07123
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Apr. 22, 2020
Background
WhatsApp Inc. and Facebook, Inc. moved to file several documents under seal. The requested sealed materials included the underlying motion to disqualify, declarations related to that motion, a request for judicial notice, a proposed order, and a proof of service. The plaintiffs relied on Civil Local Rule 79-5(e), which governs sealing documents containing information designated confidential by a nonparty under a protective order.
The U.S. Department of Justice was identified as the designating party. The plaintiffs served the Department with a supporting declaration and filed proof of service. Under the local rule, however, the designating party also had to file a declaration establishing that the designated material was sealable within four days of the sealing motion. The Department had not filed that declaration.
Court’s reasoning
The court held that the plaintiffs had not satisfied the requirements of Civil Local Rule 79-5(e). Separately, the court found that the proposed sealing was overbroad. Federal court records generally carry a presumption of public access, and the local rule requires a sealing request to be narrowly tailored to seal only material that qualifies for protection.
The court stated that sealing the entire underlying motion and related documents was inconsistent with that policy. It also found that the proposed filing did not identify sufficiently specific reasons to justify the requested redactions and saw no compelling reason to seal the certificate of service, proposed order, or entire brief.
Disposition
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denied without prejudice the plaintiffs’ motion to file under seal. The plaintiffs may file a renewed or amended motion within seven days of publication of the order, but must redact only specific portions relating to confidential material and provide justifications meeting the applicable sealing standard. Alternatively, under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(2), they may file the documents in the public record no earlier than four days and no later than ten days after publication. The plaintiffs must also immediately serve the order on the Department of Justice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.