govinfo:USCOURTS-cand-3_22-cv-01101-8

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 MOTIONS TO SEAL 
[DKT. NOS. 250, 254] 
 
 
This order addresses motions to seal (Dkt. Nos. 250, 254) that stem from plaintiffs’ 
opposition to Meta’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 251).  
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 several exhibits with their opposition to Meta’s motion for summary 
judgment.  Meta moves to seal either parts of or entire exhibits that were attached to plaintiffs’ 
opposition brief.  Meta also moves to seal portions of plaintiffs’ brief itself.  This order rules as 
follows:  
 
Case 3:22-cv-01101-WHA     Document 325     Filed 12/12/24     Page 1 of 14
 
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 
Sealed Dkt. No. 
 
(Pub. Dkt. No.) 
 
Document/ 
Exhibit 
Result Reasoning 
Dkt. No. 250-3  
 
(Dkt. No. 239-1) 
Exh. A-1 Entirety,  
DENIED. 
Meta argues that this 
exhibit should remain 
under seal because it is 
irrelevant to the ultimate 
issue of the action.  
While this may be true, 
Meta still has not met the 
lesser standard of good 
cause.  Ctr. for Auto 
Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097.  
Dkt. No. 250-4 
 
(Dkt. No. 239-2) 
Exh. A-2 Entirety,  
DENIED. 
This information is 
readily available in the 
public record and does 
not warrant sealing.   
Dkt. No. 250-5 
 
(Dkt. No. 239-3) 
Exh. A-3 GRANTED 
IN PART 
AND 
DENIED IN 
PART. 
Names and email 
addresses belong to 
individuals who are not 
named in this suit and 
thus warrants sealing.  
The content of the email, 
however, should not be 
sealed.  Nor has Meta 
demonstrated otherwise.  
Dkt. No. 250-6 
 
(Dkt. No. 239-4) 
Exh. A-4 GRANTED 
IN PART 
AND 
DENIED IN 
PART. 
See entry for Exh. A-3.   
Dkt. No. 250-7 
 
(Dkt. No. 239-5) 
Exh. A-5 GRANTED 
IN PART 
AND 
DENIED IN 
PART. 
See entry for Exh. A-3. 
Dkt. No. 250-8 
 
(Dkt. No. 239-6) 
Exh. A-6 Entirety, 
DENIED. 
Meta has not 
demonstrated why this 
exhibit warrants sealing.  
“The judge need not 
document compelling 
reasons to unseal; rather 
the proponent of sealing 
bears the burden with 
respect to sealing.”  
Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 
1182. 
Case 3:22-cv-01101-WHA     Document 325     Filed 12/12/24     Page 2 of 14
 
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 
Dkt. No. 250-9 
 
(Dkt. No. 239-7). 
Exh. A-7 GRANTED 
IN PART 
AND 
DENIED IN 
PART. 
Names should remain 
sealed.  The remainder of 
the exhibit should not be 
sealed. 
Dkt. No. 250-10 
 
(Dkt. No. 239-8). 
Exh. A-8 Entirety, 
DENIED. 
Meta has not 
demonstrated why this 
exhibit warrants sealing.  
“The judge need not 
document compelling 
reasons to unseal; rather 
the proponent of sealing 
bears the burden with 
respect to sealing.”  
Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 
1182. 
Dkt. No. 250-11 
 
(Dkt. No. 239-9) 
 
Exh. A-9 Entirety, 
DENIED. 
See entry for Exh. A-8. 
Dkt. No. 250-12 
 
(Dkt. No. 239-10) 
Exh. A-10 GRANTED 
IN PART 
AND 
DENIED IN 
PART. 
Names should remain 
sealed.  The remainder of 
the exhibit should not be 
sealed. 
Dkt. No. 250-13 
 
(Dkt. No. 239-11) 
Exh. A-11 GRANTED 
IN PART 
AND 
DENIED IN 
PART. 
Names should remain 
sealed.  The remainder of 
the exhibit should not be 
sealed. 
Dkt. No. 250- 14 
 
(Dkt. No. 239-12) 
 
Exh. A-12 Entirety, 
DENIED. 
See entry for Exh. A-8. 
Dkt. No. 250- 15 
 
(Dkt. No. 239-13) 
 
Exh. A-13 Entirety, 
DENIED. 
See entry for Exh. A-8. 
Dkt. No. 250-16 
 
(Dkt. No. 239-14) 
 
 
Exh. A-14 Entirety, 
DENIED. 
See entry for Exh. A-8. 
Dkt. No. 250-17 
 
(Dkt. No. 239-15) 
Exh. A-15 GRANTED 
IN PART 
AND 
DENIED IN 
PART. 
Names and email 
addresses belong to 
individuals who are not 
named in this suit and 
thus warrants sealing.  
Case 3:22-cv-01101-WHA     Document 325     Filed 12/12/24     Page 3 of 14
 
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 
The content of the email 
and messages, however, 
should not be sealed.  
Nor has Meta 
demonstrated otherwise.  
Dkt. No. 250-18 
 
(Dkt. No. 239-16) 
 
Exh. A-16 Entirety, 
DENIED. 
Meta has not 
demonstrated why this 
exhibit warrants sealing.  
“The judge need not 
document compelling 
reasons to unseal; rather 
the proponent of sealing 
bears the burden with 
respect to sealing.”  
Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 
1182. 
Dkt. No. 250-19 
 
(Dkt. No. 239-17) 
Exh. A-17 GRANTED 
IN PART 
AND 
DENIED IN 
PART. 
Names should remain 
sealed.  The remainder of 
the exhibit should not be 
sealed. 
Dkt. No. 250-20 
 
(Dkt. No. 239-18) 
 
Exh. A-18 Entirety, 
DENIED. 
See entry for A-16. 
Dkt. No. 250-21 
 
(Dkt. No. 239-19) 
 
Exh. A-19 GRANTED 
IN PART 
AND 
DENIED IN 
PART. 
Names should remain 
sealed.  The remainder of 
the exhibit should not be 
sealed. 
Dkt. No. 250-22 
 
(Dkt. No. 239-20) 
Exh. A-20 GRANTED 
IN PART 
AND 
DENIED IN 
PART. 
Names should remain 
sealed.  The remainder of 
the exhibit should not be 
sealed. 
Dkt. No. 250-23 
 
(Dkt. No. 239-21) 
Exh. A-21 GRANTED 
IN PART 
AND 
DENIED IN 
PART. 
Names should remain 
sealed.  The remainder of 
the exhibit should not be 
sealed. 
Dkt. No. 250-24 
 
(Dkt. No. 239-22) 
Exh. A-22 GRANTED 
IN PART 
AND 
DENIED IN 
PART. 
Names should remain 
sealed.  The remainder of 
the exhibit should not be 
sealed. 
Dkt. No. 250-25 
 
(Dkt. No. 239-26) 
Exh. A-26 Entirety, 
DENIED. 
See entry for A-16. 
Case 3:22-cv-01101-WHA     Document 325     Filed 12/12/24     Page 4 of 14
 
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 
 
Dkt. No. 250-26 
 
(Dkt. No. 239-27) 
Exh. A-27 GRANTED 
IN PART 
AND 
DENIED IN 
PART. 
Names should remain 
sealed.  The remainder of 
the exhibit should not be 
sealed. 
Dkt. No. 250-27 
 
(Dkt. No. 239-28) 
Exh. A-28 GRANTED 
IN PART 
AND 
DENIED IN 
PART. 
Names should remain 
sealed.  The remainder of 
the exhibit should not be 
sealed. 
Dkt. No. 250-28 
 
(Dkt. No. 239-29) 
Exh. A-29 Entirety, 
DENIED. 
Meta has not 
demonstrated why this 
exhibit warrants sealing.  
“The judge need not 
document compelling 
reasons to unseal; rather 
the proponent of sealing 
bears the burden with 
respect to sealing.”  
Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 
1182. 
Dkt. No. 250-29 
 
(Dkt. No. 239-30) 
 
Exh. A-30 Entirety, 
DENIED. 
See entry for Exh. A-29. 
Dkt. No. 250-30 
 
(Dkt. No. 239-31) 
 
 
Exh. A-31 GRANTED 
IN PART 
AND 
DENIED IN 
PART. 
Names should remain 
sealed.  The remainder of 
the exhibit should not be 
sealed. 
Dkt. No. 250-31 
 
(Dkt. No. 239-32) 
 
Exh. A-32 Entirety, 
DENIED. 
See entry for Exh. A-29. 
Dkt. No. 250-32 
 
(Dkt. No. 239-33) 
 
Exh. A-33 Entirety, 
DENIED. 
See entry for Exh. A-29. 
Dkt. No. 250-33 
 
(Dkt. No. 239-34) 
Exh. A-34 GRANTED 
IN PART 
AND 
DENIED IN 
PART. 
Names should remain 
sealed.  The remainder of 
the exhibit should not be 
sealed. 
Dkt. No. 250-34 
 
(Dkt. No. 239-35) 
 
Exh. A-35 Entirety, 
DENIED. 
See entry for Exh. A-29. 
Case 3:22-cv-01101-WHA     Document 325     Filed 12/12/24     Page 5 of 14
 
6 
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. 250-35 
 
(Dkt. No. 239-40) 
 
Exh. A-40 Entirety, 
DENIED. 
Meta has not 
demonstrated why this 
exhibit warrants sealing.  
“The judge need not 
document compelling 
reasons to unseal; rather 
the proponent of sealing 
bears the burden with 
respect to sealing.”  
Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 
1182. 
Dkt. No. 250-36 
 
(Dkt. No. 239-41) 
 
Exh. A-41 Entirety, 
DENIED. 
See entry for Exh. A-40. 
Dkt. No. 250-37 
 
(Dkt. No. 239-42) 
 
Exh. A-42 Entirety, 
DENIED. 
See entry for Exh. A-40. 
Dkt. No. 250-38 
 
(Dkt. No. 240-7) 
Exh. A-49 GRANTED 
IN PART 
AND 
DENIED IN 
PART. 
Names should remain 
sealed.  The remainder of 
the exhibit should not be 
sealed. 
Dkt. No. 250-39 
 
(Dkt. No. 240-8) 
 
Exh. A-50 GRANTED 
IN PART 
AND 
DENIED IN 
PART. 
Names should remain 
sealed.  The remainder of 
the exhibit should not be 
sealed. 
Dkt. No. 240-40 
 
(Dkt. No. 240-9) 
Exh. A-51 GRANTED 
IN PART 
AND 
DENIED IN 
PART. 
Names should remain 
sealed.  The remainder of 
the exhibit should not be 
sealed. 
Dkt. No. 250-41 
 
(Dkt. No. 240-10) 
Exh. A-52 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 325     Filed 12/12/24     Page 6 of 14
 
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 
Dkt. No. 
 
(Pub. Dkt. No.) 
 
Exhibit Page and Result 
Dkt. No. 254-9 
 
(Dkt. No. 241-5) 
Exh. A-60 
 
Dawn Dangaard 
Dep. Tr.  
(Mar. 20, 2024) 
 
 
Page 123 
• Lines 4-11: DENIED.  The 
highlighted text speaks to one 
of plaintiff’s main arguments, 
and Meta has not met its 
burden to justify sealing. 
 
Page 146 
• Lines 24-25: DENIED.  Meta 
has not met its burden to justify 
sealing. 
 
Page 147 
• Lines 1-4: DENIED.  Meta has 
not met its burden to justify 
sealing. 
• Lines 9-10:  DENIED. The name 
which appears in these lines 
also appears else where in the 
transcript unredacted. 
• Lines 15-25: DENIED.  These 
lines speak to plaintiffs’ main 
arguments, and Meta has not 
met its burden to justify 
sealing. 
 
Page 148 
• Lines 1-2: DENIED.  These 
lines speak to one of plaintiffs’ 
main argument, and Meta has 
not met its burden to justify 
sealing. 
 
Page 155 
• Lines 16-25: DENIED.  These 
lines speak to one of plaintiffs’ 
main argument, and Meta has 
not met its burden to justify 
sealing. 
 
Page 156 
• Lines 1-9: DENIED.  These 
lines speak to one of plaintiffs’ 
main argument, and Meta has 
Case 3:22-cv-01101-WHA     Document 325     Filed 12/12/24     Page 7 of 14
 
8 
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 
not met its burden to justify 
sealing. 
• Lines 11-16: DENIED.  These 
lines speak to one of plaintiffs’ 
main argument, and Meta has 
not met its burden to justify 
sealing. 
 
Page 169 
• Lines 16-21: DENIED.  Meta 
has not met its burden to justify 
sealing. 
 
Page 181 
• Lines 15-25: DENIED.  These 
lines speak to one of plaintiffs’ 
main argument, and Meta has 
not met its burden to justify 
sealing. 
 
Dkt. No. 254-10 
 
(Dkt. No. 241-5) 
Exh. A-60 
 
Dawn Dangaard 
Dep. Tr.  
(Mar. 20, 2024) 
 
Page 231 
• Lines 4-7: DENIED.  This is a 
question asked by counsel and 
does not reveal any 
information.  
• Lines 9-15: DENIED.  These 
lines speak to an argument 
raised in plaintiffs’ opposition 
to Meta’s motion for summary 
judgment.  Because the 
argument is raised in briefing 
for a dispositive motion, these 
lines should remain unsealed. 
 
Page 232 
• Line 4: DENIED.  Meta has not 
met its burden to justify 
sealing. 
 
Page 233 
• Lines 3-6: DENIED.  This is a 
question asked by counsel and 
does not reveal any 
information.  
 
Page 246:  
• Lines 2-19: DENIED.  These 
lines speak to one of plaintiffs’ 
Case 3:22-cv-01101-WHA     Document 325     Filed 12/12/24     Page 8 of 14
 
9 
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 
main arguments regarding 
Meta’s treatment of content 
which originates from 
OnlyFans.  
• Lines 21-25: DENIED, for the 
same reason as lines 2-19. 
 
Page 247 
• Line 1: DENIED.  These lines 
speak to one of plaintiffs’ main 
arguments regarding Meta’s 
treatment of content which 
originates from OnlyFans. 
• Lines 7-8: DENIED, for the 
same reason as line 1. 
• Lines 18-22: DENIED, for the 
same reason as line 1. 
 
Page 251 
• Lines 13-16: DENIED.  The 
information discussed in these 
lines is discussed in the 
following lines, which are 
unredacted.  
 
Page 253 
• Lines 17-22: DENIED.  These 
lines speak to one of plaintiffs’ 
main arguments regarding 
Meta’s treatment of content 
which originates from 
OnlyFans. 
 
Page 254 
• Lines 1-4: DENIED.  These 
lines speak to one of plaintiffs’ 
main arguments regarding 
Meta’s treatment of content 
which originates from 
OnlyFans. 
• Lines 6-14:  DENIED, for the 
same reason as lines 1-4. 
 
Page 255 
• Lines 21-25: DENIED.  These 
lines speak to plaintiffs’ central 
argument regarding whether 
they or other adult performers 
Case 3:22-cv-01101-WHA     Document 325     Filed 12/12/24     Page 9 of 14
 
10 
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 
have been included on the DOI 
List by Meta. 
 
Page 256 
• Lines 1-25: DENIED.  These 
lines speak to plaintiffs’ central 
argument regarding whether 
they or other adult performers 
have been included on the DOI 
List by Meta. 
 
 
Sealed Dkt. No. 
 
(Pub. Dkt. No.) 
 
Document/ 
Exhibit 
Result Reasoning 
Dkt. No. 250-43 
 
(Dkt. No. 241-6) 
 
Exh. A-61 Entirety,  
GRANTED. 
The document appears to be 
attorney work product prepared in 
connection with this action. 
Dkt. No. 250-44 
 
(Dkt. No. 241-7) 
 
Exh. A-62 Entirety,  
GRANTED. 
See entry for Exh. A-61. 
Dkt. No. 250-47 
 
(Dkt. No. 246-2) 
Exh. A-69 GRANTED IN 
PART AND 
DENIED IN PART. 
Names should remain sealed.  The 
remainder of the exhibit should 
not be sealed. 
 
Dkt. No. 
 
(Pub. Dkt. No.) 
 
Exhibit Page and Result 
Dkt. No. 254-12 
(Dkt. No. 241-8). 
Exh. A-63 
 
Kelly Gilbert Dep. Tr.  
(Mar. 15, 2024) 
 
• Page 20: proposed redactions are 
DENIED.  Meta has not met its burden to 
justify sealing. 
 
• Page 22: proposed redactions are 
DENIED.  Meta has not met its burden to 
justify sealing.  
 
• Page 36: proposed redactions are 
DENIED.  This line involves a central 
issue in this case, which is use of the 
GIFTCT. 
 
• Page 52: proposed redactions are 
Case 3:22-cv-01101-WHA     Document 325     Filed 12/12/24     Page 10 of 14
 
11 
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 
DENIED.  This line speaks to a central 
issue in this action which was the 
allegedly disproportionate actioning of 
non-OnlyFans adult entertainers. 
 
• Page 61: proposed redactions are 
DENIED.  These lines speak to plaintiffs’ 
central allegations in this action.  Meta 
has not met its burden to justify sealing. 
 
• Page 68: proposed redactions are 
DENIED.  Meta has not met its burden to 
justify sealing. 
 
• Page 74: proposed redactions are 
DENIED.  Meta has not met its burden to 
justify sealing.  
 
• Page 108: proposed redactions are 
DENIED.  These lines speak to plaintiffs’ 
central allegations. Meta has not met its 
burden to justify sealing. 
 
• Page 109: proposed redactions are 
DENIED.  These lines speak to plaintiffs’ 
central allegations.  Meta has not met its 
burden to justify sealing. 
 
• Page 136: proposed redactions are 
DENIED.  These lines speak to plaintiffs’ 
central allegations in this action.  Meta 
has not met its burden to justify sealing. 
 
• Pag 137: proposed redactions are 
DENIED.  These lines speak to plaintiffs’ 
central allegations in this action.  Meta 
has not met its burden to justify sealing. 
 
• Page 138: proposed redactions are 
DENIED.  These lines speak to plaintiffs’ 
central allegations in this action.  Meta 
has not met its burden to justify sealing. 
 
• Page 139: proposed redactions are 
DENIED.  These lines speak to plaintiffs’ 
central allegations in this action.  Meta 
has not met its burden to justify sealing. 
 
Case 3:22-cv-01101-WHA     Document 325     Filed 12/12/24     Page 11 of 14
 
12 
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 
• Page 148: proposed redactions are 
DENIED.  Meta has not met its burden to 
justify sealing. 
 
• Page 151: proposed redactions are 
DENIED.  Meta has not met its burden to 
justify sealing. 
 
• Page 153: proposed redactions are 
DENIED.  Meta has not met its burden to 
justify sealing. 
 
• Page 190: proposed redactions are 
DENIED.  Meta has not met its burden to 
justify sealing. 
 
• Page 196: proposed redactions are 
DENIED.  These lines speak to plaintiffs’ 
central allegations in this action.  Meta 
has not met its burden to justify sealing. 
 
Dkt. No. 254-13 
 
(Dkt. No. 241-8) 
Exh. A-63 
 
Kelly Gilbert Dep. Tr.  
(Mar. 15, 2024) 
 
• Page 205: proposed redactions are 
DENIED.  Meta has not met its burden to 
justify sealing. 
 
• Page 206: proposed redactions are 
DENIED.  Meta has not met its burden to 
justify sealing. 
 
• Page 231: proposed redactions are 
DENIED.  Meta has not met its burden to 
justify sealing. 
 
• Page 236: proposed redactions are 
DENIED.  Meta has not met its burden to 
justify sealing. 
 
• Page 267: proposed redactions are 
DENIED.  Meta has not met its burden to 
justify sealing. 
 
• Page 268: proposed redactions are 
DENIED.  Meta has not met its burden to 
justify sealing. 
 
• Page 298: proposed redactions are 
DENIED.  These lines speak to plaintiffs’ 
central allegations in this action.  Meta 
Case 3:22-cv-01101-WHA     Document 325     Filed 12/12/24     Page 12 of 14
 
13 
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 
has not met its burden to justify sealing. 
 
Dkt. No. 254-15 
 
(Dkt. No. 243-1) 
Exh. A-67 
 
Jennifer Allbaugh Dep. 
Tr.  
(Mar. 15, 2024) 
 
• Page 114: proposed redactions are 
DENIED.  Meta has not met its burden to 
justify sealing. 
 
• Page 115: proposed redactions are 
DENIED.  Meta has not met its burden to 
justify sealing. 
 
• Page 146: proposed redactions are 
DENIED.  These lines speak to plaintiffs’ 
central allegations in this action.  Meta 
has not met its burden to justify sealing. 
 
• Page 149: proposed redactions are 
DENIED.  These lines speak to plaintiffs’ 
central allegations in this action.  Meta 
has not met its burden to justify sealing. 
 
• Page 207: proposed redactions are 
DENIED.  Meta has not met its burden to 
justify sealing. 
Dkt. No. 254-16 
 
(Dkt. No. 243-1) 
Exh. A-67 
 
Jennifer Allbaugh Dep. 
Tr.  
(Mar. 15, 2024) 
 
• Page 247: proposed redactions are 
DENIED.  These lines speak to plaintiffs’ 
central allegations in this action.  Meta 
has not met its burden to justify sealing. 
 
• Page 248: proposed redactions are 
DENIED.  These lines speak to plaintiffs’ 
central allegations in this action.  Meta 
has not met its burden to justify sealing. 
 
• Page 281: proposed redactions are 
DENIED.  Meta has not met its burden to 
justify sealing. 
This order will now turn to the last three sets of proposed redactions by Meta.  First, 
Meta seeks to redact portions of plaintiffs’ opposition brief to Meta’s motion for summary 
judgment (Dkt. No. 250-51).  To be clear, given that plaintiff’s opposition relates to a 
dispositive motion, Meta must meet its burden under the “compelling reason” standard.  Ctr. 
for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097.  This order finds that Meta has not met its burden.  Meta’s 
states that some of these materials are “competitively sensitive” which would cause harm or 
should be sealed because these materials are otherwise “irrelevant in the case” (Dkt. No. 254 at 
Case 3:22-cv-01101-WHA     Document 325     Filed 12/12/24     Page 13 of 14
 
14 
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 
2,4).  But Meta’s contentions are vague at best.  Nowhere does Meta explain how these 
statements would cause harm.  As such, Meta’s boilerplate language does not meet the 
“compelling reason” standard.  Therefore, Meta’s proposed redactions of plaintiffs’ opposition 
to Meta’s motion summary judgment is DENIED.   
Second, Meta seeks to redact portions of plaintiff Jennifer Allbaugh’s declaration 
attached to plaintiffs’ opposition to Meta’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 250-49).  
Here, Meta must also meet the “compelling reason” standard.  Meta argues that Allbaugh’s 
declaration is irrelevant to the ultimate issues of the case and that it seeks to promote public 
scandal (Dkt. No. 254 at 5).  This order finds, however, Meta’s contentions farfetched.  In fact, 
Meta does not seek to redact the paragraph of Allbaugh’s declaration which could actually be 
construed as spiteful (Dkt. No. 250-49 ¶ 53).  And after reviewing the rest of Meta’s proposed 
redactions, this order finds that none of them warrant sealing.  As such, Meta’s proposed 
redactions of Allbaugh’s declaration is DENIED.  
Third, Meta seeks to redact portions of plaintiff Kelly Gilbert’s declaration attached to 
plaintiffs’ opposition to Meta’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 250-50).  Meta offers 
no specific reason as to why Gilbert’s declaration requires redactions.  Nor does Meta’s 
boilerplate language meet its burden under the “compelling standard” requirement.  As such, 
Meta’s proposed redactions of Gilbert’s declaration is DENIED. 
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 325     Filed 12/12/24     Page 14 of 14

Passage view · GavelSight