Facebook, Inc. v. OnLineNic Inc

Background

The court addressed multiple administrative motions to file documents under seal. The motions were filed in connection with plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendant Xiamen 35.com Internet Technology Co., Ltd.’s (“35.CN”) answer and seek entry of default. The sealing requests involved filings and exhibits submitted by plaintiffs, 35.CN, the OnlineNIC defendants, and the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”). The OnlineNIC defendants are OnlineNIC Inc. and Domain ID Shield Service Co. (“ID Shield”).

Plaintiffs did not support sealing any material, stating that they did not believe the portions of 35.CN’s opposition and supporting declarations that supposedly contained plaintiffs’ confidential information needed to remain sealed. ICANN sought protection for material reflecting personal identifying information provided to it. The OnlineNIC defendants sought protection mainly for information they described as competitively sensitive internal financial information. 35.CN sought to seal essentially all material it had designated confidential.

Legal standard

Because the underlying motion was dispositive—that is, one that could resolve claims or the case—the court applied the Ninth Circuit’s “compelling reasons” standard. That standard starts with a strong presumption that judicial records should be publicly accessible. The party seeking secrecy must identify compelling reasons supported by specific facts that outweigh the public’s interest in access. Requests must also be narrowly tailored to cover only information that can properly be sealed.

Court’s analysis

The court granted motions seeking to seal materials for which ICANN had filed a supporting declaration. For the remaining material, it generally allowed sealing only of financial figures and the names and contact information of rank-and-file employees. The court explained that confidential business and financial information may include financial terms of agreements, business strategies, and confidential negotiations.

The court found that 35.CN’s requests were particularly overbroad and unsupported by compelling reasons. It rejected 35.CN’s reliance on a letter from Chinese outside counsel asserting that Chinese law restricted disclosure of various data and personal information. The court was not persuaded that the letter justified sealing basic information, such as who signed OnlineNIC’s and 35.CN’s outsourcing contracts. The court also noted that much of the requested material concerned the parties’ relationships and related to the court’s recent alter-ego order. It further rejected requests to seal the identities of 35.CN’s wholly owned subsidiaries and its largest shareholders, officers, and directors, noting that 35.CN was publicly owned.

Rulings

The court issued detailed rulings for each filing and exhibit. In general:

- Requests supported by ICANN declarations were granted in the specified instances. - Many requests supported by 35.CN declarations were denied, except for specified dollar figures. - Many requests supported by the OnlineNIC defendants’ declarations were denied, except for specified dollar figures, references to ID Shield, and names or contact information of rank-and-file employees. - Some requests were granted in full, including specified exhibits supported by ICANN or the OnlineNIC defendants. - Requests without adequate supporting declarations, including certain ICANN-related requests, were denied.

The order did not decide the merits of the underlying motion to strike or the request for entry of default. It ordered plaintiffs and 35.CN to refile the motion to strike, opposition, reply, sur-reply, objections, declarations, and exhibits on the public docket no later than December 1, 2023, using only the redactions approved in the order. The parties could meet and confer about preparing the narrower redactions.