Opinion
22-cv-07768-HSG
01-20-2023
META PLATFORMS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. OPENTLD B.V., et al., Defendants.
*SEALED* ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE CASE UNDER SEAL AND MOTION FOR EXPEDITED LIMITED DISCOVERY Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 3
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court are Plaintiffs' motion to file case under seal and motion for expedited limited discovery. Dkt. Nos. 2, 3. The Court DENIES the motions.
Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). “[A] strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted). Plaintiffs essentially seek to sue Defendants in secret. Although the Court understands the challenges inherent in bringing this type of case, the Court finds that this sweeping request is overbroad and does not overcome the presumption in favor of access.
Further, a court may only authorize early discovery for “good cause”-“where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 768 F.Supp.2d 1040, 1044 (N.D. Cal. 2011). Plaintiffs seek to serve six Defendants in this case with requests for production and interrogatories to determine the identities of the Doe Defendants. Dkt. No. 3 at 1. Plaintiffs' cases are distinguishable because there the plaintiffs sought to subpoena uninterested third parties. See UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Doe, No. C 08-1193 SBA, 2008 WL 4104214 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2008); Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 22-CV-05088-LB, 2022 WL 4467684 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2022). Here, Plaintiff seeks early discovery from the named defendants themselves, who all have an interest in being allowed a Rule 26(f) conference and developing a proposed plan before being subject to discovery. The discovery Plaintiff wishes to pursue can be sought through the normal discovery procedures.
The motions are thus DENIED. Plaintiffs requested that if the sealing motion is denied, the “case not be opened and that the case initiating documents be returned unfiled per L.R. 79-5(g)(2).” Dkt. No. 2 at 5. The case is already open, the Clerk has filed the complaint, and there is no legal basis of which the Court is aware for “unfiling” a case, including under L.R. 79-5(g)(2). Plaintiffs may submit supplemental briefing of two pages or less by February 3, 2023, explaining how they intend to proceed. The case will remain sealed until then, but if Plaintiffs wish to dismiss this case, they must present grounds for why it should remain sealed upon dismissal under the Ninth Circuit's Kamakana standard.
IT IS SO ORDERED.