Frasco v. Flo Health, Inc.

Background

The order addressed multiple requests to seal portions of discovery letters and related filings. Sealing prevents the public from viewing specified court filings or information in them. The court emphasized the strong presumption that court records are open to the public. It explained that sealing material connected to non-dispositive motions requires a particularized showing of good cause, and that material connected to dispositive motions requires compelling reasons supported by specific facts.

The court also stated that general assertions of possible commercial or competitive harm are insufficient. A party's designation of discovery material as confidential under a protective order, by itself, does not justify sealing.

Rulings

The chart attached to the order recorded these dispositions:

- The request concerning the discovery letter brief about Meta's source code, Dkt. No. 199-2, was denied. The court noted that Meta had not asked to seal the contents of the letter brief in its response. - The request concerning plaintiffs' requests for production and interrogatory 4, Dkt. No. 219-2, was denied because Meta made no further showing explaining why the highlighted portions should be sealed. - The request concerning plaintiffs' motion for a protective order, Dkt. No. 224-2, was granted for highlighted portions describing plaintiff Gamino's deposition and her personal, highly sensitive, and/or health information. - Flo's response to plaintiffs' sealing motion, Dkt. No. 229-1, was granted for highlighted portions referring to or quoting material that plaintiffs had sought to seal at Dkt. No. 224. - Plaintiffs' request concerning a discovery dispute letter, Dkt. No. 280-2, was denied because no further showing was made to justify sealing information taken from material Meta had designated confidential during discovery. - Flo's request concerning a discovery dispute letter, Dkt. No. 283-2, was denied because plaintiffs made no further showing to justify sealing information taken from material plaintiffs had designated confidential during discovery. - Plaintiffs' requests concerning a motion to compel and its exhibit, Dkt. Nos. 290-2 and 290-3, were each denied because Flo made no further showing explaining why the highlighted portions should be sealed. - The discovery letter brief concerning class members' use of the Flo App, Dkt. No. 299-2, was denied because Flo and Meta made no further showing to justify sealing. - The discovery letter brief concerning the deposition of Roman Bugaev, Dkt. No. 301-3, was denied for the same reason. - The responsive letter brief concerning class members' use of the Flo App, Dkt. No. 307-3, was denied. Flo's general assertion that the material involved trade secrets and could harm its competitive position did not adequately explain how disclosure would cause competitive harm. - The responsive letter brief concerning Roman Bugaev's deposition, Dkt. No. 309-3, was denied for the same reason.

Effect of the Order

For the materials the court declined to seal, the default of public access applied. The parties were directed to file unredacted versions of the relevant documents on the electronic filing system within seven days of the order. The order addressed access to court records and discovery-related filings; it did not resolve the merits of the underlying dispute.