Zellmer v. Facebook, Inc.

Background

This order addressed motions to seal documents filed with Facebook’s motion for summary judgment, Zellmer’s opposition, and Facebook’s reply. The documents had been produced by Facebook or referred to Facebook-produced materials. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5, the court treated Facebook as responsible for explaining why the materials should remain sealed.

Legal standard

The court applied a strong presumption that judicial records are open to the public. The party seeking secrecy must identify compelling, specific reasons that outweigh the public’s interest in access. General statements about possible competitive or commercial harm are not enough. A confidentiality designation under a protective order also does not by itself justify sealing. Requests must be narrowly tailored rather than seeking to seal entire documents unnecessarily.

Court’s analysis

The court found that most of Facebook’s requests sought to seal entire documents or relied on conclusory claims of competitive harm. It also noted that Facebook had publicly announced that it would stop using its facial-recognition system, making the claimed competitive harm from disclosure of materials about that system unclear.

The court denied the requests to seal Facebook’s summary-judgment memorandum, the declaration of Gary McCoy, the excerpted depositions of Gary McCoy, Yaniv Taigman, and Omry Yadan, and Facebook’s reply in support of summary judgment. The court found that the materials generally contained high-level descriptions of Facebook’s facial-recognition software, computer systems, or network architecture, rather than trade secrets. It also denied requests concerning several exhibits to Zellmer’s opposition, including materials merely designated confidential during discovery, a public Facebook post, an issued patent, and documents containing only high-level discussions of the technology.

The court granted in part the request to seal Zellmer’s opposition. It allowed sealing of specified pages and lines that cited the Hashimi Report. The court granted the request to seal Exhibit 6 to the opposition, Dr. Atif Hashimi’s expert report, because the report discussed Facebook’s facial-recognition technology in detail and referred to specific portions of Facebook’s source code. The court denied the request to seal the other listed portions and exhibits where Facebook had not shown a compelling reason for secrecy.

Disposition

The majority of the sealing requests were denied. The request concerning Zellmer’s opposition was granted in part, and the request concerning the Hashimi Report was granted. The parties were directed to file unredacted versions of documents the court declined to seal on the electronic docket within seven days of the order. This order did not decide Facebook’s underlying motion for summary judgment.