DZ Reserve v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

Background

The parties filed numerous motions to seal records in the case, including discovery letters, declarations, motions, scheduling stipulations, and the complaint. The motions concerned docket entries 141, 147, 152, 159, 165, 172, 183, 189, 191, 199, 201, 207, 216, 222, 228, 232, 239, 242, and 247.

Legal standard

The court explained that federal court records carry a strong presumption of public access. A request to seal material connected to a non-dispositive motion requires a particularized showing of good cause. Material connected to a dispositive motion, such as summary judgment, requires compelling reasons supported by specific facts. The court also cited the district’s local rule requiring a sealing request to show that the material is privileged, a trade secret, or otherwise legally protected, and requiring the request to be narrowly tailored.

Court’s analysis

The court found that both sides frequently offered only conclusory descriptions, such as claims that documents contained commercially sensitive, proprietary, or confidential information. The parties often did not explain how a competitor could use the information to obtain an unfair advantage. The court also found that the parties sought to seal documents that merely touched on Facebook’s products, without adequately limiting the requests to protectable material.

As an example, Facebook sought to seal large portions of the plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint based on assertions that information about the reliability of Facebook’s Potential Reach estimate for advertisers was sensitive and confidential. The court found that Facebook did not explain why disclosure would cause competitive harm and noted that sealing information at the heart of the plaintiffs’ claims would make the litigation difficult for the public to understand. The court also explained that a designation under a stipulated protective order did not, by itself, justify sealing the information.

Disposition and instructions

The court declined to review and catalog every sealing problem. It returned the matter to the parties for corrective action and gave them another opportunity to submit well-supported requests to seal a limited number of records. The court did not state that the sealing motions were granted or denied; instead, it directed the parties to follow a specified procedure for any renewed request.

The parties could file one consolidated motion identifying each document they sought to seal, after meeting and conferring about disputes. Documents the parties agreed should not be sealed had to be filed on the public docket with references to the earlier sealing requests. The parties also had to mail chambers a binder containing the proposed documents, with consecutive tabs and proposed redactions highlighted in yellow, and file full unredacted copies with only the proposed redactions highlighted under seal on the electronic docket.

Any renewed administrative motion had to include a joint declaration explaining, in particular and non-conclusory terms, the factual basis for sealing under the applicable standard. The parties also had to submit one proposed order in a modified table format identifying each document, the exact portions to be sealed, and the specific reasons and supporting declaration citations. The materials were due by February 1, 2021. If no motion was filed, the parties had to file unredacted copies of the previously submitted materials on the public docket by February 19, 2020, as stated in the opinion. The court warned that it could restrict or bar future sealing motions if a party again failed to follow the governing standards, local rules, or court orders.