Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Netflix, Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-03708
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Personalized Media v. Netflix: Judge Cronan granted Netflix’s request to seal information about its source code and engineering practices.
Netflix obtained sealing of the specified portions of the filings and the specified exhibit, limiting public access to that information; the order concerned documents filed in connection with Personalized Media’s discovery motion.
What happened
In Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., Netflix asked to seal parts of documents filed in connection with a discovery dispute. The request covered parts of Personalized Media’s memorandum, parts of a declaration by William Wong, and all of an exhibit containing deposition testimony.
Netflix said the materials contained source code, information about that code, and confidential engineering practices. It argued that disclosure could help competitors, expose security risks, and cause significant competitive harm.
Judge John P. Cronan granted Netflix’s request, finding that Netflix’s privacy interests outweighed the limited public-access interest in these materials. The clerk was directed to close the motions pending at docket numbers 117 and 122.
The detailed version
- Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Netflix, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-03708
- John Cronan
- Nov. 20, 2020
Background
Netflix moved to seal portions of documents submitted in support of Personalized Media Communications, LLC’s motion to compel production of relevant source code. The request covered: (1) portions of Personalized Media’s memorandum supporting its November 16, 2020 motion; (2) portions of the declaration of William Wong; and (3) the entirety of Exhibit 2 to the declaration of Ravi Bhalla. Netflix asserted that these materials contained Netflix source code, information about the code, or confidential engineering practices.
Access and confidentiality analysis
The court applied the Second Circuit’s three-step test for sealing requests. It treated the documents as judicial documents because they were submitted to help the court decide the parties’ discovery dispute. The court nevertheless gave the public-access presumption limited weight because the dispute was non-dispositive and concerned discovery rather than the parties’ underlying legal rights. The court also noted that courts commonly provide strong protection for confidential source-code information.
The court found a strong countervailing interest against disclosure. The requested redactions contained snippets of Netflix code and described the code’s structure and functionality, while the sealed exhibit contained testimony describing confidential Netflix engineering practices. The court accepted that public disclosure could allow competitors to improve competing products or services and could expose Netflix to security risks.
Ruling
The court granted Netflix’s sealing request. It found that Netflix’s privacy interests outweighed the presumption of public access to the information in the limited proposed redactions and the sealed exhibit. The clerk was directed to close the motions pending at docket numbers 117 and 122. The order did not decide the underlying discovery dispute or the merits of the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.