govinfo:USCOURTS-cand-3_22-cv-01101-10

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 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 301, 306, 307, 310] 
 
 
This order addresses motions to seal (Dkt. Nos. 301, 306, 307, 310).  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. 
This order now addresses the requested sealings, and rules as follows:  
Sealed Dkt. No. Document/Exhibit Result Reasoning 
 
Dkt. No. 301-1 Plaintiffs’ 
Supplemental Brief 
Described in 
Paragraph 4 of 
Court’s July 2, 
2024 Order 
Proposed 
redactions 
(as filed in 
Dkt. No. 
306-3) are 
DENIED. 
This brief relates directly to the 
merits of this action and Meta 
has not articulated specifically 
how unsealing will lead to 
harm. 
 
Case 3:22-cv-01101-WHA     Document 327     Filed 12/12/24     Page 1 of 6
 
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 
Dkt. No. 301-6 Carina Illingworth 
Dep. on Aug. 14, 
2024 
 
Proposed 
redactions 
(as filed in 
Dkt. No. 
306-5) are 
DENIED. 
 
Meta has not articulated 
specifically how unsealing will 
lead to harm. 
 
Dkt. No. 301-7 Jenny Price Dep.  
on Aug. 19, 2024 
 
Entirety, 
DENIED. 
Plaintiffs conditionally filed 
under seal but Meta has not 
moved to keep under seal.  As 
such, the request is denied as 
moot.   
 
Dkt. No. 301-8 Adam Parker  
Dep. on Aug. 16, 
2024 
 
Entirety, 
DENIED.  
This request is overbroad; Meta 
has not articulated specifically 
how unsealing will lead to 
harm. 
 
Dkt. No. 301-9 Remy Gayet 
Dep. on Aug 19, 
2024 
 
GRANTED 
IN PART 
AND 
DENIED IN 
PART.  
This request is overbroad.  Only 
the following material should be 
redacted:  
• Page 43, line 15: redact the 
number after “above.” 
• Page 43, line 24: redact the 
number after “above.” 
• Page 43, line 25: redact the 
number after “oh.” 
• Page 44, line 8: redact the 
number in this line. 
• Page 44, line 11: redact the 
number after “above.” 
 
The remainder of the transcript 
should be unsealed.  
 
Dkt. No. 301-10 David Callies  
Dep. on Aug 15, 
2024 
 
Entirety, 
DENIED.  
This request is overbroad; Meta 
has not articulated specifically 
how unsealing will lead to 
harm. 
 
Dkt. No. 301-4 Exh. 11 
 
Decl. of Ramy 
Gayet 
 
 
GRANTED 
IN PART 
AND 
DENIED IN 
PART.  
Please refer to ruling provided 
in the order at Dkt. No. 326 and 
ensure this exhibit complies 
with that ruling accordingly.  
Dkt. No. 301-5 Exh. 13 
 
Entirety, 
DENIED.  
This request is overbroad; Meta 
has not articulated specifically 
Case 3:22-cv-01101-WHA     Document 327     Filed 12/12/24     Page 2 of 6
 
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 
Decl of Adam 
Parker 
 
how unsealing will lead to 
harm. 
 
Dkt. No. 307-3 Meta’s Response 
to Plaintiffs’ 
Supplemental 
Briefing Regarding 
Summary 
Judgment 
 
Proposed 
redactions 
are 
GRANTED 
IN PART 
AND 
DENIED IN 
PART. 
This brief relates directly to the 
merits of this action. 
 
Only the following material 
should be redacted:  
• Page 11, line 8: redact the 
rest of the sentence after 
“from.” 
• Page 11, line 9: redact the 
number after “under.” 
• Page 11, line 12: redact the 
number after “over.” 
• Page 11, line 15: redact the 
number after “above.” 
 
The remainder of the response 
should be unsealed. 
 
Dkt. No. 307-4 Exh. 66 to 
Anderson Decl. in 
Support of Meta’s 
Response to 
Plaintiffs’ 
Supplemental 
Briefing Regarding 
Summary 
Judgment 
 
Proposed 
redactions 
are DENIED. 
Please see above ruling in Dkt. 
No. 306-5.  Please ensure this 
exhibit complies accordingly.  
Dkt. No. 307-5 Exh. 67 to 
Anderson Decl. in 
Support of Meta’s 
Response to 
Plaintiffs’ 
Supplemental 
Briefing Regarding 
Summary 
Judgment 
 
Entirety, 
DENIED. 
This exhibit expounds upon the 
manner in which plaintiffs’ 
content has been flagged within 
Meta’s internal systems and 
therefore deals with the merits 
of the action.  Meta has not 
articulated how unsealing this 
exhibit specifically will lead to 
harm. 
Dkt. No. 307-6 Exh. 68 to 
Anderson Decl. in 
Support of Meta’s 
Response to 
Plaintiffs’ 
Supplemental 
Briefing Regarding 
Entirety, 
DENIED. 
Please see entry for Exh. 67. 
Case 3:22-cv-01101-WHA     Document 327     Filed 12/12/24     Page 3 of 6
 
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 
Summary 
Judgment 
 
Dkt. No. 307-7 Exh. 69 to 
Anderson Decl. in 
Support of Meta’s 
Response to 
Plaintiffs’ 
Supplemental 
Briefing Regarding 
Summary 
Judgment 
 
Entirety, 
DENIED. 
Please see entry for Exh. 67. 
Dkt. No. 307-8 Exh. 70 to 
Anderson Decl. in 
Support of Meta’s 
Response to 
Plaintiffs’ 
Supplemental 
Briefing Regarding 
Summary 
Judgment; 
Excerpts of Aug 
16. 2024 Dep. of 
Adam Parker 
 
Entirety, 
DENIED.  
This request is overbroad; Meta 
has not articulated specifically 
how unsealing will lead to 
harm. 
 
Dkt. No. 307-9 
 
Exh. 73 to 
Anderson Decl. in 
Support of Meta’s 
Response to 
Plaintiffs’ 
Supplemental 
Briefing Regarding 
Summary 
Judgment 
 
Entirety, 
DENIED.  
This exhibit involves how one 
of the plaintiff’s accounts was 
moderated; Meta has not 
articulated specifically how 
unsealing will lead to harm. 
 
Dkt. No. 307-10. Exh. 74 to 
Anderson Decl. in 
Support of Meta’s 
Response to 
Plaintiffs’ 
Supplemental 
Briefing Regarding 
Summary 
Judgment 
 
Entirety, 
DENIED.  
See entry for Dkt. No. 307-9. 
 Exh. 75 to 
Anderson Decl. in 
Entirety, 
DENIED.  
See entry for Dkt. No. 307-9. 
Case 3:22-cv-01101-WHA     Document 327     Filed 12/12/24     Page 4 of 6
 
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 
Support of Meta’s 
Response to 
Plaintiffs’ 
Supplemental 
Briefing Regarding 
Summary 
Judgment 
 
 Exh. 76 to 
Anderson Decl. in 
Support of Meta’s 
Response to 
Plaintiffs’ 
Supplemental 
Briefing Regarding 
Summary 
Judgment; 
Excerpts of Aug 15 
Dep. of David 
Callies 
 
Entirety, 
DENIED.  
This request is overbroad; Meta 
has not articulated specifically 
how unsealing will lead to 
harm. 
 
Dkt. 307-13 Exh. 77 to 
Anderson Decl. in 
Support of Meta’s 
Response to 
Plaintiffs’ 
Supplemental 
Briefing Regarding 
Summary 
Judgment; Jun. 12, 
2024 Decl. of 
Remy Gayet 
 
GRANTED 
IN PART 
AND 
DENIED IN 
PART.  
Please refer to ruling provided 
in the order at Dkt. No. 326 and 
ensure this exhibit complies 
with that ruling accordingly.  
Dkt. No. 307-14 Exh. 78 to 
Anderson Decl. in 
Support of Meta’s 
Response to 
Plaintiffs’ 
Supplemental 
Briefing Regarding 
Summary 
Judgment; 
Excerpts of Aug. 
19, 2024, Dep. of 
Remy Gayet 
 
GRANTED 
IN PART 
AND 
DENIED IN 
PART.  
Please see ruling above in entry 
Dkt. No. 301-9 and ensure this 
exhibit complies with that 
ruling accordingly. 
 
Case 3:22-cv-01101-WHA     Document 327     Filed 12/12/24     Page 5 of 6
 
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 
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 327     Filed 12/12/24     Page 6 of 6

Passage view · GavelSight