govinfo:USCOURTS-cand-3_22-cv-01101-7

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
DAWN DANGAARD, et al., 
Plaintiffs, 
v. 
 
INSTAGRAM, LLC, et al., 
Defendants. 
 
 
 
No.  22-01101 WHA    
 
 
ORDER RE MOTION TO SEAL  
[DKT. NOS. 227, 230, 231] 
 
 
 
This order addresses motions to seal (Dkt. Nos. 270, 230, 231) which stem from 
plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Dkt. No. 228) and Meta’s 
motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 232).  
The public enjoys the right to know to whom the public courts provide relief (or not).  
Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–80 (9th Cir. 2006). Filings “more 
than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only for “compelling reasons.”  Ctr. 
for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101–02 (9th Cir.).  That “standard applies 
to most judicial records,” with a “good cause” standard applying otherwise.  Id. at 1098.  Parties 
seeking to seal filings in this district must also follow basic rules, Civil L.R. 79-5. 
Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but 
provisionally filed their motion under seal (Dkt. No. 227), because of information that Meta 
had designated as confidential.  But Meta does not seek to keep it under seal (Dkt. No. 236).  
As such, the motion to seal to this material is DENIED.   
Case 3:22-cv-01101-WHA     Document 324     Filed 12/12/24     Page 1 of 5
 
2 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
This order now addresses materials within Meta’s motion for summary judgment that 
were designated as confidential by either plaintiffs or Meta.  Meta filed an administrative 
motion (Dkt. No. 231) to seal material within its motion for summary judgment that plaintiffs 
had designated as confidential.  Plaintiffs, however, do not seek to keep their materials under 
seal (Dkt. No. 234).  As such, Meta’s administrative motion to seal (Dkt. No. 231) is DENIED.  
This order now addresses materials contained within Meta’s motion for summary 
judgment that Meta wishes to keep sealed (Dkt. No. 230).  In the brief supporting Meta’ 
motion to seal, Meta cites three general arguments for why its materials should be either 
partially or fully sealed.  First, Meta states that citing to its internal policies of how it 
moderates content and statistics reflecting how Meta blocks certain content would allow 
“malicious actors to take advantage of this specialized internal information to circumvent or 
otherwise render ineffective” Meta’s moderation processes (id. at 2).  Meta argues that its 
ability to prevent such conduct   Second, that Meta’s content moderation policies could cause 
competitive harm if disclosed because competitors could copy Meta’s techniques to better 
operate their online services (ibid.).  Third, that some of the information contains personal 
identifying information and other material implicating the privacy interests of third parties (id. 
at 4).   
As a preliminary issue, Meta seeks to seal portions of the motion for summary judgment 
itself.  Given that the motion is dispositive, Meta must articulate a compelling reason to justify 
sealing swaths of a dispositive motion.  This order finds that Meta has not met its burden.  
Though Meta seeks to seal specific sentences and headers, all of the proposed redactions speak 
to the merits of the action for which the public should have access.  The manner in which Meta 
moderates content from an adult platform competing with OnlyFans versus content that 
originates from OnlyFans is directly at issue.  Therefore, Meta’s general policies which 
articulate the extent to which sexual content is permitted on any of Meta’s social media 
platforms are also relevant.  Moreover, this order finds that Meta has not demonstrated that any 
of the proposed redactions threaten competitive harm or would teach someone how to override 
its moderation process; Meta makes vague arguments but none articulate how an unsealed 
Case 3:22-cv-01101-WHA     Document 324     Filed 12/12/24     Page 2 of 5
 
3 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
motion would actually lead to any of these supposed harms.  For these reasons, Meta’s 
proposed redactions within its motion for summary judgment are DENIED. 
Meta also seeks to seal portions of its opposition expert report, written by Mr. Doug 
Bania (Dkt. No. 230-6, Exh. 31).  As with the written motion for summary judgment, this order 
finds that Meta has not met its burden in identifying a compelling reason as to why it should 
seal parts of this expert report.  The proposed redactions expound upon issues that tie directly 
into the merits of this action; absent any compelling reason regarding prospective harm, this 
exhibit must be unsealed.  As such, Meta’s proposed redactions for Exhibit 31 attached to its 
motion for summary judgment is DENIED.  
This order now addresses the remaining requested sealings, and rules as follows:  
 
Sealed Dkt. No. 
 
(Pub. Dkt. No.) 
 
Document/Exhibit Result Reasoning 
Dkt. No. 230-4 
 
(Dkt. No. 232-27) 
 
Exh. 25 Proposed 
redactions 
are 
DENIED. 
This declaration speaks to how 
Meta moderates sexual content, 
which goes to the merits of this 
action. 
Dkt. No. 230-5 
 
(Dkt. No. 232-28) 
 
Exh. 26 Proposed 
redactions 
are 
DENIED. 
 
These responses speak to Meta’s 
moderation policies, which goes 
into the merits of this action. 
Dkt. No. 230-7 
 
(Dkt. No. 232-44) 
Exh. 42 Entirety,  
DENIED. 
While this exhibit documents 
Meta’s internal policies about 
how it moderates sexual content, 
Meta has not met its burden 
justify sealing.  Meta vaguely 
alludes to a competitive harm if 
its moderation policies are 
disclosed, but this issue goes to 
the heart of this action.  As such, 
this exhibit should be unsealed.  
Dkt. No. 230-8 
 
(Dkt. No. 232-45) 
Exh. 43 GRANTED 
IN PART 
AND 
DENIED IN 
PART. 
 
Names should remain sealed.  The 
remainder of the exhibit should 
not be sealed. 
Case 3:22-cv-01101-WHA     Document 324     Filed 12/12/24     Page 3 of 5
 
4 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
Dkt. No. 230-9 
 
(Dkt. No. 232-47) 
Exh. 45 GRANTED 
IN PART 
AND 
DENIED IN 
PART. 
This exhibit is relevant to the 
central allegations of this action 
and Meta also relies on it in its 
motion for summary judgment.  
Names should remain sealed.  The 
remainder of the exhibit should 
not be sealed. 
Dkt. No. 230-10 
 
(Dkt. No. 232-48) 
Exh. 46 GRANTED 
IN PART 
AND 
DENIED IN 
PART. 
 
See entry for Exh. 45. Names 
should remain sealed.  The 
remainder of the exhibit should 
not be sealed. 
Dkt. No. 230-11 
 
(Dkt. No. 232-49) 
 
Exh. 47 GRANTED 
IN PART 
AND 
DENIED IN 
PART. 
 
Names should remain sealed.  The 
remainder of the exhibit should 
not be sealed. 
Dkt. No. 230-12 
 
(Dkt. No. 232-50) 
 
Exh. 48 GRANTED 
IN PART 
AND 
DENIED IN 
PART. 
 
Names should remain sealed.  The 
remainder of the exhibit should 
not be sealed. 
Dkt. No. 230-13 
 
(Dkt. No. 232-51) 
Exh. 49 GRANTED 
IN PART 
AND 
DENIED IN 
PART. 
 
Names should remain sealed.  The 
remainder of the exhibit should 
not be sealed. 
Dkt. No. 230-14 
 
(Dkt. No. 232-60) 
Exh. 58 GRANTED 
IN PART 
AND 
DENIED IN 
PART. 
While this exhibit documents 
Meta’s internal policies about 
how it moderates sexual content, 
Meta has not met its burden 
justify sealing.  Meta vaguely 
alludes to a competitive harm if 
its moderation policies are 
disclosed, but this issue goes to 
the heart of this action.  As such, 
only the name may be redacted. 
The result must be unsealed. 
Dkt. No. 230-15 
 
(Dkt. No. 232-61) 
Exh. 59 GRANTED 
IN PART 
AND 
DENIED IN 
PART. 
 
Names should remain sealed.  The 
remainder of the exhibit should 
not be sealed. 
Case 3:22-cv-01101-WHA     Document 324     Filed 12/12/24     Page 4 of 5
 
5 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
United States District Court 
Northern District of California 
The movant shall file public versions of the aforementioned documents in full 
compliance with this order by JANUARY 31, 2025, AT NOON. 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
Dated:  December 12, 2024. 
 
  
WILLIAM ALSUP 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
Case 3:22-cv-01101-WHA     Document 324     Filed 12/12/24     Page 5 of 5

Passage view · GavelSight