`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
` ASHEVILLE DIVISION
`CIVIL CASE NO. 1:15-cv-00102-MR
`
`
`
`)
`WINDY CITY INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`FACEBOOK, INC.,
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`________________________________ )
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`O R D E R
`
`THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant’s Unopposed
`
`Motion to Seal [Doc. 23].
`
`The Defendant Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) moves for leave to file
`
`under seal its Memorandum in support of its Motion to Transfer Venue
`
`(“Memorandum”) and
`
`the Declaration of Jeremy Jordan
`
`(“Jordan
`
`Declaration”). Specifically, Facebook seeks permanent sealing of the names
`
`of certain Facebook employees identified on pages 3 and 13 of the
`
`Memorandum and in paragraphs 5 and 7 of the Jordan Declaration. The
`
`Plaintiff does not oppose Facebook’s motion to seal.
`
`
`
`The press and the public have, under both the First Amendment and
`
`the common law, a qualified right of access to judicial documents and
`
`records filed in civil and criminal proceedings. Doe v. Public Citizen, 749
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00102-MR Document 27 Filed 08/29/15 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`F.3d 246, 265 (4th Cir. 2014). “The common-law presumptive right of access
`
`extends to all judicial documents and records, and the presumption can be
`
`rebutted only by showing that ‘countervailing interests heavily outweigh the
`
`public interests in access.’” Id. at 265-66 (quoting in part Rushford v. New
`
`Yorker Magazine, Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 253 (4th Cir. 1988)). The First
`
`Amendment right of access “may be restricted only if closure is ‘necessitated
`
`by a compelling government interest’ and the denial of access is ‘narrowly
`
`tailored to serve that interest.’” Id. at 266 (quoting in part In re Wash. Post
`
`Co., 807 F.2d 383, 390 (4th Cir. 1986)).
`
`
`
`Here, Facebook has failed to demonstrate any interest compelling
`
`enough to overcome the presumptive right of public access to these
`
`documents, under either the First Amendment or the common law. As
`
`grounds for its motion, Facebook contends that sealing of these names “is
`
`necessary to protect confidential and sensitive business and personnel
`
`information concerning Facebook and its employees,” and that “[p]ublic
`
`knowledge of this confidential information could give competitors a distinct
`
`competitive advantage over Defendant and impose on the privacy of
`
`Facebook’s employees.” [Doc. 24 at 3]. These assertions, however, are
`
`entirely conclusory and speculative. The Court cannot permit the sealing of
`
`a document in a civil case “based on unsubstantiated or speculative claims
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00102-MR Document 27 Filed 08/29/15 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`of harm . . . .” Public Citizen, 749 F.3d at 270. Facebook offers only
`
`speculation that public knowledge of the identities of these Facebook
`
`employees could give
`
`its competitors a distinct advantage.
`
` See
`
`Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. Alan & Kristin Hudson Farm, 278 F.R.D. 136,
`
`142-43 (D. Md. 2011) (denying motion to seal identities of employees where
`
`company claimed that competitors could use information to “poach” its
`
`employees; company failed to provide any “specific demonstrations of fact”
`
`or “concrete examples” of such conduct by its competitors). Further,
`
`Facebook has not shown how identifying those employees who may be
`
`potential witnesses in this action unduly imposes on their privacy.
`
`
`
`For these reasons, Facebook’s motion to seal is denied.
`
`IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant’s Unopposed
`
`Motion to Seal [Doc. 23] is DENIED. The Defendant shall file an unredacted
`
`version of the Memorandum and the Jordan Declaration within five (5) days
`
`of the entry of this Order.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00102-MR Document 27 Filed 08/29/15 Page 3 of 3
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
