dotStrategy Co. v. Facebook Inc
- William Alsup
- 3:20-cv-00170
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 9
In dotStrategy Co. v. Facebook Inc., Judge Alsup granted in part and denied in part Facebook’s sealing requests, requiring limited public disclosures.
Facebook, dotStrategy, the parties filing class-certification materials, and members of the public seeking access to those court records. The parties must publicly refile Dr. Kneuper’s report with only the court-approved redactions.
What happened
In dotStrategy Co. v. Facebook Inc., Facebook asked to keep portions of documents filed for dotStrategy’s request to certify a class confidential. The documents included expert reports, deposition transcripts, declarations, and an internal document about identifying fake or compromised accounts.
The court said court records are generally open to the public. Facebook had to show specific, compelling reasons for secrecy, such as protecting business information that could harm its competitive position, and its requests had to be limited to information that truly needed protection.
The court granted in part and denied in part the sealing motions. It denied sealing three specific portions of Dr. Robert Kneuper’s report, granted the remaining sealing request for that report, and granted the motions concerning the other listed filings and the internal document. The court ordered the parties to file a redacted public version of Dr. Kneuper’s report. Judge William Alsup issued the order.
The detailed version
- dotStrategy Co. v. Facebook Inc · No. 3:20-cv-00170
- William Alsup
- June 10, 2021
Background
The case concerns dotStrategy’s allegations about Facebook’s obligations to refund advertising customers when fake accounts interact with their advertisements. This order addressed Facebook’s requests to keep portions of nine documents—and one additional document in its entirety—under seal while the parties filed materials related to class certification.
The requested materials included expert reports and deposition transcripts, declarations by Facebook personnel, and an internal Facebook document titled “PDO Labeling Guidelines.” Facebook sought to protect information about its systems for preventing, detecting, classifying, and documenting abusive or fake accounts; the databases used for those efforts; information stored in those databases; and details about database fields. Facebook also sought protection for information about advertisement performance, advertiser preferences, billing, consumer-account interactions with advertisements, and interactions between fake or abusive accounts and advertisements.
Legal Standard
The court began with the strong presumption that the public may inspect and copy judicial records. A party seeking to seal such records must overcome that presumption by identifying compelling reasons supported by specific facts. Protecting confidential business information that could harm a party’s competitive position may qualify as a compelling reason. Sealing requests must also be narrowly tailored to cover only material that warrants protection and must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d).
The court found that information about Facebook’s efforts to combat fake accounts and protect platform security could be sealed because public disclosure could undermine those efforts and harm Facebook’s competitive standing. It also found that information about Facebook’s advertising systems, advertiser preferences, and advertising-related data could be sealed because it related to Facebook’s customizable advertising campaigns and business model.
Rulings
The order states that the motions to seal were GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
For Docket Nos. 121 and 123, the court denied Facebook’s request to seal three portions of Dr. Robert Kneuper’s report. The denied portions were:
- A sentence stating that, according to Facebook, the same data were available for other class members going back more than three years.
- A similar sentence stating that the same data were available for other class members going back substantially in time.
- A clause stating that Facebook had recently described the steps it took to generate an estimate.
The court reasoned that these portions did not reveal proprietary information, or that the information was readily inferable from other public information in the case. The court granted the request to seal the other specifically identified portions of Dr. Kneuper’s report. It ordered the parties to refile a redacted public version with redactions limited to the portions the court approved.
For Docket No. 124, the court granted Facebook’s motion to file under seal portions of Dr. Catherine Tucker’s expert report and declarations by John Lyle and Foster. The approved redactions covered information about advertiser billing preferences and systems for preventing, detecting, and enforcing against abusive or fake accounts, including data-table names. The court found those requests narrowly tailored.
For Docket Nos. 133 and 134, the order discussed Facebook’s requests concerning class-certification reply materials, deposition transcripts, Dr. Kneuper’s rebuttal report, and the entirety of the “PDO Labeling Guidelines” document. The court found that the information warranted sealing and that the requests were narrowly tailored. It then stated: “Therefore, the motion to file under seal, Dkt. No. 133, is GRANTED.” The opinion does not separately state a disposition for Docket No. 134.
The order addressed access to court filings only; it did not decide whether a class should be certified or whether Facebook owed refunds to advertisers.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.