, , , ,

Judge Chhabria chastises Meta for “preposterous” sealing request of discovery materials to “avoid negative publicity” to Meta

In denying Meta’s request to file under seal certain documents attached to the Plaintiffs’ motion and Meta’s opposition regarding the filing of a Third Amended Complaint, Judge Chhabria didn’t hold back.

Judge Chhabria called Meta’s request to seal the documents as “preposterous.”

Meta’s request is preposterous. With one possible exception, there is not a single thing in those briefs that should be sealed. The possible exception is the document title
beginning with the phrase “Fair-Use Lib” that appears in Footnote 5 of the opposition, but even that seems dubious.

It is clear that Meta’s sealing request is not designed to protect against the disclosure of
sensitive business information that competitors could use to their advantage. Rather, it is designed to avoid negative publicity. This is reflected in a statement by a Meta employee from one of the documents Meta seeks to seal: “If there is media coverage suggesting we have used a dataset we know to be pirated, such as LibGen, this may undermine our negotiating position with regulators on these issues.” Dkt. No. 347-3.

Judge Chhabria warned Meta about further overbroad requests:

As for the other sealing requests—relating to the proposed amended complaint, the exhibits filed in connection with the briefing on the motion for leave to amend the complaint, and the motion for relief from Judge Hixson’s order and accompanying exhibit (which the plaintiffs redacted and sealed in accordance with Meta’s designations)—they are denied without prejudice to submitting a revised sealing request by Monday, January 13. If Meta again submits an unreasonably broad sealing request, all materials will simply be unsealed.

One final comment. Between this sealing request and assertions in Meta’s opposition brief such as “[t]hat document expressly discusses torrents and seeding,” Opp. at 7, the Court is becoming concerned that Meta and its counsel are starting to travel down a familiar road. See In re Facebook, Inc. Consumer Privacy User Profile Litigation, 655 F. Supp. 3d 899 (N.D. Cal. 2023).


IT IS SO ORDERED.

The unredacted briefs related to plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file third amended complaint

Leave a Reply


Discover more from Chat GPT Is Eating the World

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading