Meta Platforms, Inc. v. BrandTotal Ltd.
- Joseph Spero
- 3:20-cv-07182
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Meta Platforms v. BrandTotal, Judge Spero granted some sealing requests and denied others involving documents from a discovery dispute.
Meta Platforms, Inc.; BrandTotal Ltd.; Unimania, Inc.; and public access to the discovery filings. The order also addresses whether public filing would waive privilege as to Exhibit C.
What happened
Meta Platforms, Inc. v. BrandTotal Ltd. concerns a request to keep a joint discovery letter brief and attachments from public view. BrandTotal Ltd. and Unimania, Inc. made the request based on confidentiality designations by Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc.
Because the discovery dispute was only loosely connected to the case’s merits, the court required a showing of “good cause” rather than the stricter standard used for materials central to the merits. The court found that Meta had not justified sealing the joint letter brief, a declaration, or Exhibit B in full, and said Meta must identify specific portions that should be redacted.
Judge Spero granted the request for Exhibit C, granted most proposed redactions to Exhibit A, and denied sealing for Exhibit D and certain portions of Exhibit A. The order also required public versions of specified materials and stated that filing them would not waive privilege as to Exhibit C.
The detailed version
- Meta Platforms, Inc. v. BrandTotal Ltd. · No. 3:20-cv-07182
- Joseph Spero
- Mar. 4, 2022
Background
Defendants BrandTotal Ltd. and Unimania, Inc., collectively called “BrandTotal” in the order, moved to file under seal a joint discovery letter brief and its attachments. They based the request on confidentiality designations made by Plaintiff Meta Platforms, Inc., which the order says was known at the time as Facebook, Inc. Meta submitted a declaration from its attorney, Michael Chmelar.
Legal standard
The court said the discovery dispute was only tangentially related to the merits of the case. It therefore applied the more lenient “good cause” standard for sealing rather than requiring “compelling reasons.” The court explained that Meta had not shown good cause to seal the joint letter brief, Chmelar’s November 22, 2021 declaration, or Exhibit B in their entirety. Meta was directed to submit a declaration identifying specific portions that warranted sealing and proposed redacted versions. The court also directed Meta not to seek sealing for information already appearing in the public record, including the court’s January 10, 2022 order resolving the joint letter.
Rulings
The court ruled as follows:
- Joint letter brief, Chmelar declaration, and Exhibit B: The court found that Meta had not shown good cause to seal these materials in their entirety and required a more targeted submission addressing specific portions. - Exhibit A: The motion was granted as to all of Meta’s proposed redactions except the redactions on pages 57 and 58, which concerned facts already in the public record, and page 71, where the witness testified that he could not recall the answer. The motion was otherwise denied as to Exhibit A. Meta was ordered to file a redacted public version. - Exhibit C: The motion was granted as to the entire document. Exhibit C had been produced under a stipulation and order under Rule 502(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which protects against waiver of privilege. The court ordered that filing the other documents publicly would not waive privilege as to Exhibit C or related subject matter. - Exhibit D: The motion was denied. The court found that the testimony in Exhibit D did not appear to disclose the substantive contents of Exhibit C or other sensitive information. Meta was ordered to file Exhibit D publicly, but it could submit a renewed motion limited to specific portions if it believed disclosure would cause harm.
The order set March 15, 2022, as the deadline for the required public filings and any renewed motion concerning Exhibit D.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.