Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Netflix, Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-03708
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Personalized Media Communications v. Netflix, Judge Cronan granted Netflix’s motion to seal limited redactions protecting source code and engineering information.
Netflix, Inc., whose limited redactions were ordered sealed, and the public, whose access to that information was restricted.
What happened
Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Netflix, Inc. concerned Netflix’s request to seal portions of its opposition to a discovery motion and a supporting declaration. Netflix said the redacted material contained source code and confidential engineering practices.
The court treated the materials as judicial documents but found that the public-access presumption was relatively weak because the underlying dispute involved discovery rather than the merits. It also found that disclosure could cause Netflix competitive and security-related harm.
Judge John P. Cronan granted Netflix’s request to seal the limited proposed redactions and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion listed at Docket 131.
The detailed version
- Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Netflix, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-03708
- John Cronan
- Nov. 24, 2020
Background
Netflix moved to seal portions of two filings: its opposition to Personalized Media Communications, LLC’s November 16, 2020 motion to compel production of relevant Cadmium source code, and the supporting declaration of Maria Kazandjieva. Netflix argued that the proposed redactions contained snippets of its source code, information about the code’s structure and functionality, and confidential engineering practices.
Legal Standard
The court applied the three-step test used in the Second Circuit for sealing requests. First, it determined whether the materials were “judicial documents”—documents relevant to the court’s judicial function and useful in deciding the dispute. Second, it assessed the weight of the presumption that judicial records should be available to the public. Third, it balanced that presumption against competing interests.
The court found that the filings were judicial documents because they had been submitted to help resolve the parties’ dispute over the proper scope of discovery. But it gave the public-access presumption relatively little weight because the discovery motion was not dispositive of any merits issue. The court also noted that courts generally provide strong protection to confidential source code during discovery.
Court’s Analysis
The court found a strong countervailing interest against public access. It stated that Netflix used strict measures to keep its source code and engineering practices confidential and that the information constituted trade secrets. Disclosure could allow competitors to improve competing products or services. Details about the code’s structure and organization could also help malicious third parties attack Netflix’s service, creating a risk of security breaches and additional competitive harm.
The court concluded that the risk of competitive harm to Netflix greatly outweighed the limited presumption of public access for the proposed redactions.
Ruling
The defendant’s request was GRANTED. The court approved sealing of the limited proposed redactions in Netflix’s opposition and the Kazandjieva Declaration. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion pending at Docket 131.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.