For anyone looking for the actual PDF page, my best guess is it's referring to page 25 of docket number 261. Here's the quote I found; it seems to be referring

For anyone looking for the actual PDF page, my best guess is it's referring to page 25 of docket number 261. Here's the quote I found; it seems to be referring to a particular tort. You may also want to look at the full text to see the citations I omitted in the [...] for brevity: Intrusion upon seclusion. This tort requires intentional intrusion “upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns … if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.” [...] Plaintiffs have not alleged any intrusion into their private affairs; rather, the information at issue is all data they already shared with a broad circle of friends and even strangers (friends of friends). [...] Nor could the disclosure of information such as page likes, which are designed to be communicated to other people, be “highly offensive to a reasonable person.” Disclosure of far more private information, such as private medical records and the identity of undercover police, has been found insufficient. The “highly offensive standard … is reserved for truly exceptional cases of intrusion,” [...] and this is not such as case.