From Judge William Alsup's opinion Thursday in Dangaard v. Instagram, LLC (N.D. Cal. 2024):
The public enjoys the right to know to whom the public courts provide relief (or not). Filings "more than tangentially related to the merits of a case" may be sealed only for "compelling reasons." That "standard applies to most judicial records," with a "good cause" standard applying otherwise….
This order now addresses materials contained within Meta's motion for summary judgment that Meta wishes to keep 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…. 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. Third, that some of the information contains personal identifying information and other material implicating the privacy interests of third parties.
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 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. 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….
The court does, however, allow redaction of information implicating third parties' privacy interests. David Azar (Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC) represents plaintiffs.
The post Judge Rejects Meta's Attempt to Seal Various Information About Moderating Practices appeared first on Reason.com.
