Dangaard v. Instagram, LLC

Background

This omnibus order addressed outstanding motions to seal, meaning requests to restrict public access to court filings. The court began with the presumption that court records are open to the public. It explained that filings more than tangentially related to the merits require compelling reasons for sealing, while filings only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed for good cause.

During discovery and briefing about personal jurisdiction over the Fenix defendants, plaintiffs sought permission to file an alleged transcript of internal Meta investigations that they said they obtained from Wired magazine reporters. Meta defendants asked to seal the transcript and part of plaintiffs’ filing discussing it. The court allowed additional jurisdictional discovery, including depositions of Meta executives and Wired reporters. Plaintiffs later withdrew their bribery allegations, and the Fenix defendants were dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction in an earlier round of this case.

Rulings on the alleged transcript and related materials

The court DENIED AS MOOT plaintiffs’ request to file the alleged transcript. The court said the transcript had been considered in hard copy at a hearing, the jurisdictional issue had since been decided, and plaintiffs’ later briefing stated that the additional discovery did not produce evidence they were relying on to oppose the Fenix jurisdiction motion.

The court GRANTED Meta defendants’ request to file the transcript under seal. It found good cause because the transcript was, in the procedural context presented, at most tangentially related to the merits and had been used to justify additional jurisdictional discovery. The court expressly stated that its ruling neither approved nor disapproved the alleged transcript or the circumstances surrounding its investigation.

The court also GRANTED Meta defendants’ request to seal specified portions of a plaintiffs’ status report, including information about alleged wire transfers and excerpts of a Wired reporter’s deposition. It GRANTED Meta defendants’ request to seal materials connected to a status report, requests concerning an expedited summary-judgment schedule, declarations, and discovery responses. The court said those materials concerned case-management deadlines and matters that had not yet affected the merits, although the analysis could differ if the alleged transcript became relevant in another context.

Sanctions-related filings

The court GRANTED the Fenix defendants’ request to file under seal an exhibit to their sanctions motion. The redactions covered the name of a person identified as a minor and alleged bank-account numbers related to wire transfers. The court relied on a prior ruling requiring those redactions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a)(3) and (a)(4).

Plaintiffs sought redactions to protect the privacy interests of a nonparty lawyer and his law firm and to conceal the specific amount of plaintiffs’ costs. The court said the request concerning the lawyer and law firm was moot because the order and the lawyer’s declaration would not be sealed, and because the information was relevant to the circumstances of the action and to the court’s sanctions determination. The court DENIED that request. It also DENIED plaintiffs’ request to seal their litigation-cost figure, finding that the cited authority concerning a company’s confidential financial information did not establish a basis for sealing litigation costs in this action.

Deposition excerpts and Fenix’s motion to clarify

Regarding resubmitted excerpts from depositions of Fenix defendants’ corporate representatives, the court stated that nonpublic Fenix email addresses may be redacted. It further stated that only specific bank names and dollar amounts in the accounts, and only the dollar amounts that were confidential terms of contractor agreements, may be redacted. The court said the context of the questioning about connections to California financial institutions was pertinent to the merits of personal jurisdiction.

Fenix defendants filed a motion to clarify four details in prior sealing decisions. The court GRANTED the request to seal a previously unaddressed confidential dollar figure on page 1 of plaintiffs’ response. It GRANTED the request for narrower redactions identifying specific California financial institutions used by Leonid Radvinsky, while leaving indications that the institutions were based in California. It GRANTED the request to seal previously unaddressed confidential dollar figures and user statistics in specified interrogatory responses. It also GRANTED Fenix defendants’ request for reconsideration concerning generalized descriptions of tax payments to California tax authorities, finding good cause to seal that information because it was at most tangentially related to the merits.

Disposition

The court stated that the motions to file under seal were GRANTED TO THE EXTENT DESCRIBED ABOVE. Revised materials were required to be filed within twenty-one days of the order.

Classification and effect

This is a procedural order about access to court records and related discovery materials. It did not decide the substance of the alleged bribery or blacklisting allegations, and it did not decide the merits of the underlying action.