1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9

10 DAWN DANGAARD, et al., 11 Plaintiffs, No. 22-01101 WHA

12 v. ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL 13 INSTAGRAM, LLC, et al., [DKT. NOS. 250, 254] 14 Defendants.

15 16 This order addresses motions to seal (Dkt. Nos. 250, 254) that stem from plaintiffs’ 17 opposition to Meta’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 251). 18 The public enjoys the right to know to whom the public courts provide relief (or not). 19 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu,

, 1178–80 (9th Cir. 2006). Filings “more 20 than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only for “compelling reasons.” Ctr. 21 for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC,

, 1101–02 (9th Cir.). That “standard applies 22 to most judicial records,” with a “good cause” standard applying otherwise.

. Parties 23 seeking to seal filings in this district must also follow basic rules, Civil L.R. 79-5. 24 Plaintiffs filed several exhibits with their opposition to Meta’s motion for summary 25 judgment. Meta moves to seal either parts of or entire exhibits that were attached to plaintiffs’ 26 opposition brief. Meta also moves to seal portions of plaintiffs’ brief itself. This order rules as 27 follows: Sealed Dkt. No. Document/ Result Reasoning 1 Exhibit 2 (Pub. Dkt. No.)

3 Dkt. No. 250-3 Exh. A-1 Entirety, Meta argues that this DENIED. exhibit should remain 4 (Dkt. No. 239-1) under seal because it is irrelevant to the ultimate 5 issue of the action. 6 While this may be true, Meta still has not met the 7 lesser standard of good cause. Ctr. for Auto 8 Safety,

. Dkt. No. 250-4 Exh. A-2 Entirety, This information is 9 DENIED. readily available in the 10 (Dkt. No. 239-2) public record and does not warrant sealing. 11 Dkt. No. 250-5 Exh. A-3 GRANTED Names and email IN PART addresses belong to 12 (Dkt. No. 239-3) AND individuals who are not 13 DENIED IN named in this suit and PART. thus warrants sealing. 14 The content of the email, however, should not be 15 sealed. Nor has Meta demonstrated otherwise. 16 Dkt. No. 250-6 Exh. A-4 GRANTED See entry for Exh. A-3. 17 IN PART (Dkt. No. 239-4) AND 18 DENIED IN PART. 19 Dkt. No. 250-7 Exh. A-5 GRANTED See entry for Exh. A-3. 20 IN PART (Dkt. No. 239-5) AND 21 DENIED IN PART. 22 Dkt. No. 250-8 Exh. A-6 Entirety, Meta has not DENIED. demonstrated why this 23 (Dkt. No. 239-6) exhibit warrants sealing. 24 “The judge need not document compelling 25 reasons to unseal; rather the proponent of sealing 26 bears the burden with respect to sealing.” 27 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at Dkt. No. 250-9 Exh. A-7 GRANTED Names should remain 1 IN PART sealed. The remainder of 2 (Dkt. No. 239-7). AND the exhibit should not be DENIED IN sealed. 3 PART. Dkt. No. 250-10 Exh. A-8 Entirety, Meta has not 4 DENIED. demonstrated why this (Dkt. No. 239-8). exhibit warrants sealing. 5 “The judge need not 6 document compelling reasons to unseal; rather 7 the proponent of sealing bears the burden with 8 respect to sealing.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 9 1182. 10 Dkt. No. 250-11 Exh. A-9 Entirety, See entry for Exh. A-8. DENIED. 11 (Dkt. No. 239-9)

12 Dkt. No. 250-12 Exh. A-10 GRANTED Names should remain 13 IN PART sealed. The remainder of (Dkt. No. 239-10) AND the exhibit should not be 14 DENIED IN sealed. PART. 15 Dkt. No. 250-13 Exh. A-11 GRANTED Names should remain 16 IN PART sealed. The remainder of (Dkt. No. 239-11) AND the exhibit should not be 17 DENIED IN sealed. PART. 18 Dkt. No. 250- 14 Exh. A-12 Entirety, See entry for Exh. A-8. DENIED. 19 (Dkt. No. 239-12)

20 Dkt. No. 250- 15 Exh. A-13 Entirety, See entry for Exh. A-8. 21 DENIED. (Dkt. No. 239-13) 22 Dkt. No. 250-16 Exh. A-14 Entirety, See entry for Exh. A-8. 23 DENIED. 24 (Dkt. No. 239-14)

25 Dkt. No. 250-17 Exh. A-15 GRANTED Names and email 26 IN PART addresses belong to 27 (Dkt. No. 239-15) AND individuals who are not DENIED IN named in this suit and The content of the email 1 and messages, however, 2 should not be sealed. Nor has Meta 3 demonstrated otherwise. Dkt. No. 250-18 Exh. A-16 Entirety, Meta has not 4 DENIED. demonstrated why this (Dkt. No. 239-16) exhibit warrants sealing. 5 “The judge need not 6 document compelling reasons to unseal; rather 7 the proponent of sealing bears the burden with 8 respect to sealing.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 9 1182. 10 Dkt. No. 250-19 Exh. A-17 GRANTED Names should remain IN PART sealed. The remainder of 11 (Dkt. No. 239-17) AND the exhibit should not be DENIED IN sealed. 12 PART. 13 Dkt. No. 250-20 Exh. A-18 Entirety, See entry for A-16. DENIED. 14 (Dkt. No. 239-18)

15 Dkt. No. 250-21 Exh. A-19 GRANTED Names should remain 16 IN PART sealed. The remainder of (Dkt. No. 239-19) AND the exhibit should not be 17 DENIED IN sealed. PART. 18 Dkt. No. 250-22 Exh. A-20 GRANTED Names should remain IN PART sealed. The remainder of 19 (Dkt. No. 239-20) AND the exhibit should not be 20 DENIED IN sealed. PART. 21 Dkt. No. 250-23 Exh. A-21 GRANTED Names should remain IN PART sealed. The remainder of 22 (Dkt. No. 239-21) AND the exhibit should not be DENIED IN sealed. 23 PART. 24 Dkt. No. 250-24 Exh. A-22 GRANTED Names should remain IN PART sealed. The remainder of 25 (Dkt. No. 239-22) AND the exhibit should not be DENIED IN sealed. 26 PART. Dkt. No. 250-25 Exh. A-26 Entirety, See entry for A-16. 27 DENIED. 1 Dkt. No. 250-26 Exh. A-27 GRANTED Names should remain 2 IN PART sealed. The remainder of (Dkt. No. 239-27) AND the exhibit should not be 3 DENIED IN sealed. PART. 4 Dkt. No. 250-27 Exh. A-28 GRANTED Names should remain 5 IN PART sealed. The remainder of (Dkt. No. 239-28) AND the exhibit should not be 6 DENIED IN sealed. PART. 7 Dkt. No. 250-28 Exh. A-29 Entirety, Meta has not DENIED. demonstrated why this 8 (Dkt. No. 239-29) exhibit warrants sealing. “The judge need not 9 document compelling 10 reasons to unseal; rather the proponent of sealing 11 bears the burden with respect to sealing.” 12 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 13 1182. Dkt. No. 250-29 Exh. A-30 Entirety, See entry for Exh. A-29. 14 DENIED. (Dkt. No. 239-30) 15 16 Dkt. No. 250-30 Exh. A-31 GRANTED Names should remain IN PART sealed. The remainder of 17 (Dkt. No. 239-31) AND the exhibit should not be DENIED IN sealed. 18 PART. Dkt. No. 250-31 Exh. A-32 Entirety, See entry for Exh. A-29. 19 DENIED. (Dkt. No. 239-32) 20

21 Dkt. No. 250-32 Exh. A-33 Entirety, See entry for Exh. A-29. DENIED. 22 (Dkt. No. 239-33)

23 Dkt. No. 250-33 Exh. A-34 GRANTED Names should remain 24 IN PART sealed. The remainder of (Dkt. No. 239-34) AND the exhibit should not be 25 DENIED IN sealed. PART. 26 Dkt. No. 250-34 Exh. A-35 Entirety, See entry for Exh. A-29. 27 DENIED. (Dkt. No. 239-35) 1 Dkt. No. 250-35 Exh. A-40 Entirety, Meta has not 2 DENIED. demonstrated why this (Dkt. No. 239-40) exhibit warrants sealing. 3 “The judge need not document compelling 4 reasons to unseal; rather the proponent of sealing 5 bears the burden with 6 respect to sealing.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 7 1182. Dkt. No. 250-36 Exh. A-41 Entirety, See entry for Exh. A-40. 8 DENIED. (Dkt. No. 239-41) 9

10 Dkt. No. 250-37 Exh. A-42 Entirety, See entry for Exh. A-40. DENIED. 11 (Dkt. No. 239-42)

12 Dkt. No. 250-38 Exh. A-49 GRANTED Names should remain 13 IN PART sealed. The remainder of (Dkt. No. 240-7) AND the exhibit should not be 14 DENIED IN sealed. PART. 15 Dkt. No. 250-39 Exh. A-50 GRANTED Names should remain 16 IN PART sealed. The remainder of (Dkt. No. 240-8) AND the exhibit should not be 17 DENIED IN sealed. PART. 18 Dkt. No. 240-40 Exh. A-51 GRANTED Names should remain IN PART sealed. The remainder of 19 (Dkt. No. 240-9) AND the exhibit should not be 20 DENIED IN sealed. PART. 21 Dkt. No. 250-41 Exh. A-52 GRANTED Names should remain IN PART sealed. The remainder of 22 (Dkt. No. 240-10) AND the exhibit should not be DENIED IN sealed. 23 PART. 24 25 26 27 Dkt. No. Exhibit Page and Result 1

2 (Pub. Dkt. No.)

3 Dkt. No. 254-9 Exh. A-60 Page 123 • Lines 4-11: DENIED. The 4 (Dkt. No. 241-5) Dawn Dangaard highlighted text speaks to one Dep. Tr. of plaintiff’s main arguments, 5 (Mar. 20, 2024) and Meta has not met its 6 burden to justify sealing.

7 Page 146 • Lines 24-25: DENIED. Meta 8 has not met its burden to justify 9 sealing.

10 Page 147 • Lines 1-4: DENIED. Meta has 11 not met its burden to justify sealing. 12 • Lines 9-10: DENIED. The name 13 which appears in these lines also appears else where in the 14 transcript unredacted. • Lines 15-25: DENIED. These 15 lines speak to plaintiffs’ main 16 arguments, and Meta has not met its burden to justify 17 sealing.

18 Page 148 19 • Lines 1-2: DENIED. These lines speak to one of plaintiffs’ 20 main argument, and Meta has not met its burden to justify 21 sealing.

22 Page 155 23 • Lines 16-25: DENIED. These lines speak to one of plaintiffs’ 24 main argument, and Meta has not met its burden to justify 25 sealing.

26 Page 156 27 • Lines 1-9: DENIED. These lines speak to one of plaintiffs’ not met its burden to justify 1 sealing. 2 • Lines 11-16: DENIED. These lines speak to one of plaintiffs’ 3 main argument, and Meta has not met its burden to justify 4 sealing.

5 Page 169 6 • Lines 16-21: DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to justify 7 sealing.

8 Page 181 9 • Lines 15-25: DENIED. These lines speak to one of plaintiffs’ 10 main argument, and Meta has not met its burden to justify 11 sealing.

12 Dkt. No. 254-10 Exh. A-60 Page 231 13 • Lines 4-7: DENIED. This is a (Dkt. No. 241-5) Dawn Dangaard question asked by counsel and 14 Dep. Tr. does not reveal any (Mar. 20, 2024) information. 15 • Lines 9-15: DENIED. These 16 lines speak to an argument raised in plaintiffs’ opposition 17 to Meta’s motion for summary judgment. Because the 18 argument is raised in briefing for a dispositive motion, these 19 lines should remain unsealed. 20 Page 232 21 • Line 4: DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to justify 22 sealing.

23 Page 233 24 • Lines 3-6: DENIED. This is a question asked by counsel and 25 does not reveal any information. 26

27 Page 246: • Lines 2-19: DENIED. These main arguments regarding 1 Meta’s treatment of content 2 which originates from OnlyFans. 3 • Lines 21-25: DENIED, for the same reason as lines 2-19. 4 Page 247 5 • Line 1: DENIED. These lines 6 speak to one of plaintiffs’ main arguments regarding Meta’s 7 treatment of content which originates from OnlyFans. 8 • Lines 7-8: DENIED, for the 9 same reason as line 1. • Lines 18-22: DENIED, for the 10 same reason as line 1.

11 Page 251 12 • Lines 13-16: DENIED. The information discussed in these 13 lines is discussed in the following lines, which are 14 unredacted.

15 Page 253 16 • Lines 17-22: DENIED. These lines speak to one of plaintiffs’ 17 main arguments regarding Meta’s treatment of content 18 which originates from OnlyFans. 19

20 Page 254 • Lines 1-4: DENIED. These 21 lines speak to one of plaintiffs’ main arguments regarding 22 Meta’s treatment of content which originates from 23 OnlyFans. 24 • Lines 6-14: DENIED, for the same reason as lines 1-4. 25 Page 255 26 • Lines 21-25: DENIED. These 27 lines speak to plaintiffs’ central argument regarding whether have been included on the DOI 1 List by Meta. 2 Page 256 3 • Lines 1-25: DENIED. These lines speak to plaintiffs’ central 4 argument regarding whether they or other adult performers 5 have been included on the DOI 6 List by Meta.

7

8 Sealed Dkt. No. Document/ Result Reasoning Exhibit 9 (Pub. Dkt. No.) 10 Dkt. No. 250-43 Exh. A-61 Entirety, The document appears to be 11 GRANTED. attorney work product prepared in (Dkt. No. 241-6) connection with this action. 12 Dkt. No. 250-44 Exh. A-62 Entirety, See entry for Exh. A-61. 13 GRANTED. 14 (Dkt. No. 241-7)

15 Dkt. No. 250-47 Exh. A-69 GRANTED IN Names should remain sealed. The PART AND remainder of the exhibit should 16 (Dkt. No. 246-2) DENIED IN PART. not be sealed. 17 18 Dkt. No. Exhibit Page and Result

19 (Pub. Dkt. No.)

20 Dkt. No. 254-12 Exh. A-63 • Page 20: proposed redactions are 21 (Dkt. No. 241-8). DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to Kelly Gilbert Dep. Tr. justify sealing. 22 (Mar. 15, 2024) • Page 22: proposed redactions are 23 DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing. 24

25 • Page 36: proposed redactions are DENIED. This line involves a central 26 issue in this case, which is use of the GIFTCT. 27 DENIED. This line speaks to a central 1 issue in this action which was the 2 allegedly disproportionate actioning of non-OnlyFans adult entertainers. 3 • Page 61: proposed redactions are 4 DENIED. These lines speak to plaintiffs’ central allegations in this action. Meta 5 has not met its burden to justify sealing. 6 • Page 68: proposed redactions are 7 DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing. 8

9 • Page 74: proposed redactions are DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to 10 justify sealing.

11 • Page 108: proposed redactions are 12 DENIED. These lines speak to plaintiffs’ central allegations. Meta has not met its 13 burden to justify sealing.

14 • Page 109: proposed redactions are DENIED. These lines speak to plaintiffs’ 15 central allegations. Meta has not met its 16 burden to justify sealing.

17 • Page 136: proposed redactions are DENIED. These lines speak to plaintiffs’ 18 central allegations in this action. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing. 19

20 • Pag 137: proposed redactions are DENIED. These lines speak to plaintiffs’ 21 central allegations in this action. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing. 22 23 • Page 138: proposed redactions are DENIED. These lines speak to plaintiffs’ 24 central allegations in this action. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing. 25 • Page 139: proposed redactions are 26 DENIED. These lines speak to plaintiffs’ 27 central allegations in this action. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing. • Page 148: proposed redactions are 1 DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to 2 justify sealing.

3 • Page 151: proposed redactions are DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to 4 justify sealing.

5 • Page 153: proposed redactions are 6 DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing. 7 • Page 190: proposed redactions are 8 DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to 9 justify sealing.

10 • Page 196: proposed redactions are DENIED. These lines speak to plaintiffs’ 11 central allegations in this action. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing. 12

13 Dkt. No. 254-13 Exh. A-63 • Page 205: proposed redactions are DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to 14 (Dkt. No. 241-8) Kelly Gilbert Dep. Tr. justify sealing. (Mar. 15, 2024) 15 • Page 206: proposed redactions are 16 DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing. 17 • Page 231: proposed redactions are 18 DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to 19 justify sealing.

20 • Page 236: proposed redactions are DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to 21 justify sealing.

22 • Page 267: proposed redactions are 23 DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing. 24 • Page 268: proposed redactions are 25 DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to 26 justify sealing.

27 • Page 298: proposed redactions are D . These lines speak to plaintiffs’ has not met its burden to justify sealing. 1

2 Dkt. No. 254-15 Exh. A-67 • Page 114: proposed redactions are DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to 3 (Dkt. No. 243-1) Jennifer Allbaugh Dep. justify sealing. Tr. 4 (Mar. 15, 2024) • Page 115: proposed redactions are 5 DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing. 6 • Page 146: proposed redactions are 7 DENIED. These lines speak to plaintiffs’ central allegations in this action. Meta 8 has not met its burden to justify sealing. 9 • Page 149: proposed redactions are 10 DENIED. These lines speak to plaintiffs’ central allegations in this action. Meta 11 has not met its burden to justify sealing.

12 • Page 207: proposed redactions are 13 DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing. 14 Dkt. No. 254-16 Exh. A-67 • Page 247: proposed redactions are 15 DENIED. These lines speak to plaintiffs’ (Dkt. No. 243-1) Jennifer Allbaugh Dep. central allegations in this action. Meta 16 Tr. has not met its burden to justify sealing. (Mar. 15, 2024) 17 • Page 248: proposed redactions are DENIED. These lines speak to plaintiffs’ 18 central allegations in this action. Meta has not met its burden to justify sealing. 19

20 • Page 281: proposed redactions are DENIED. Meta has not met its burden to 21 justify sealing. 22 This order will now turn to the last three sets of proposed redactions by Meta. First, 23 Meta seeks to redact portions of plaintiffs’ opposition brief to Meta’s motion for summary 24 judgment (Dkt. No. 250-51). To be clear, given that plaintiff’s opposition relates to a 25 dispositive motion, Meta must meet its burden under the “compelling reason” standard. Ctr. 26 for Auto Safety,

. This order finds that Meta has not met its burden. Meta’s 27 states that some of these materials are “competitively sensitive” which would cause harm or 1 2,4). But Meta’s contentions are vague at best. Nowhere does Meta explain how these 2 statements would cause harm. As such, Meta’s boilerplate language does not meet the 3 “compelling reason” standard. Therefore, Meta’s proposed redactions of plaintiffs’ opposition 4 to Meta’s motion summary judgment is DENIED. 5 Second, Meta seeks to redact portions of plaintiff Jennifer Allbaugh’s declaration 6 attached to plaintiffs’ opposition to Meta’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 250-49). 7 Here, Meta must also meet the “compelling reason” standard. Meta argues that Allbaugh’s 8 declaration is irrelevant to the ultimate issues of the case and that it seeks to promote public 9 scandal (Dkt. No. 254 at 5). This order finds, however, Meta’s contentions farfetched. In fact, 10 Meta does not seek to redact the paragraph of Allbaugh’s declaration which could actually be 11 construed as spiteful (Dkt. No. 250-49 § 53). And after reviewing the rest of Meta’s proposed 12 redactions, this order finds that none of them warrant sealing. As such, Meta’s proposed 5 13 redactions of Allbaugh’s declaration is DENIED. 14 Third, Meta seeks to redact portions of plaintiff Kelly Gilbert’s declaration attached to 3 15 plaintiffs’ opposition to Meta’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 250-50). Meta offers a 16 no specific reason as to why Gilbert’s declaration requires redactions. Nor does Meta’s 3 17 boilerplate language meet its burden under the “compelling standard” requirement. As such, 18 Meta’s proposed redactions of Gilbert’s declaration is DENIED. 19 The movant shall file public versions of the aforementioned documents in full 20 compliance with this order by JANUARY 31, 2025, AT NOON. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: December 12, 2024.

[A 25 — 26 ILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28