O'Connor et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 237

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting in Part and Denying in Part 221 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (emclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2015)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

DOUGLAS O’CONNOR, et al.,

9

Plaintiffs,

10

v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

No. C-13-3826 EMC

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

12

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Defendants.
___________________________________/

(Docket No. 221)
13
14
15

On December 30, 2014, Plaintiffs filed their opposition to Defendant Uber Technologies’

16

currently pending summary judgment motion. See Docket Nos. 211 (Summary Judgment Motion);

17

222 (Opposition to Summary Judgment). Plaintiffs also filed an administrative motion to seal

18

certain discovery materials attached to their opposition. Docket No. 221. As required by this

19

Court’s Local Rules, the parties that designated the relevant materials as confidential pursuant to a

20

stipulated protective order timely filed declarations in support of Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to

21

seal. Docket Nos. 224-25 (Supporting Declarations); see also N.D. Cal. Local Rule 79-5(e)(1). The

22

Court has reviewed those declarations, and now grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs’

23

administrative motion to file under seal.

24

A.

25

Applicable Legal Standard
A party seeking to seal a judicial record submitted in connection with a dispositive motion

26

bears the burden of establishing that “compelling reasons” support the sealing request. See

27

Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Apple,

28

Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 11-cv-1846-LHK, 2012 WL 2913669, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal.

1

Jul. 17, 2012). More specifically, the party seeking to maintain records under seal must “articulate

2

compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access

3

and the public policies favoring disclosure [of court records], such as the public interest in

4

understanding the judicial process.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (internal modifications and

5

quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted). In order to grant a motion to seal documents when

6

applying the “compelling reasons” standard, this Court must “base its decision on a compelling

7

reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.”

8

Id. at 1179 (citations omitted). “The presumption of access is not rebutted where documents subject

9

to a protective order are filed under seal as attachments to a dispositive motion. The compelling
reasons standard continues to apply.” Id. at 1179 (internal modifications and quotation marks

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

omitted) (citations omitted).

12

“In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure

13

and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for

14

improper purposes,’ such as the use of the records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal,

15

circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner

16

Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). The “mere fact that the production of records

17

may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment” will not compel the court to seal its records. Id. Or, as a

18

number of courts in this district have suggested, “only documents of exceptionally sensitive

19

information” will be kept from the public. Apple, 2012 WL 2913669, at *2 (emphasis added); see

20

also Oracle America v. Google, Inc., No. 10-cv-03561-WHA, at ECF No. 540 (noting that sealing

21

motions “will be denied outright” unless counsel identified “a limited amount of exceptionally

22

sensitive information that truly deserves protection”).

23

B.

24
25

Application of the Compelling Reasons Standard
The Court now applies the above-described standard to the discovery materials sought to be

sealed in Plaintiffs’ administrative motion:

26

1.

27

Uber maintains that Exhibit 21 “contain[s] commercially valuable information regarding past

28

issues with the functionality of the Uber driver application and Uber’s strategies and procedures that

Exhibit 21

2

1

it developed to address those issues.” Docket No. 225 (Uber Supporting Declaration). This

2

representation appears inaccurate. The Court has reviewed Exhibit 21 in its entirety. The document

3

contains a series of emails between an Uber driver and a (presumably low level) Uber employee

4

regarding the driver’s claimed issues with the Uber application freezing, causing him to allegedly

5

receive smaller payments than he believed he was entitled to. Uber’s apparently “commercially

6

valuable strategy” in response to this functionality “issue” was to inform the driver that such

7

occurrences “are often due to network errors . . . associated with Verizon’s network connection and

8

are out of Uber’s control.” Docket No. 221-5. Put simply, nothing about Exhibit 21 rises to the

9

level of a trade secret or commercially valuable information.1
Uber also maintains that Exhibit 21 is sealable because it contains “potentially embarrassing

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

facts about a non-party to this litigation, who is clearly identified by name and whose account was

12

deactivated.” Docket No. 225. The Court recognizes the non-party’s privacy interests, and finds

13

that such an interest can be appropriately balanced with the public’s right to access by redacting

14

personal identifying information from Exhibit 21. See, e.g., G&C Auto Body Inc. v. Geico General

15

Insurance Co., No. C06-4898 MJJ, 2008 WL 867372, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2008) (finding that a

16

non-party’s privacy interest in information with “little or no relevance to the issues raised by [the]

17

summary judgment motions” is sufficient to satisfy the compelling reasons standard). Redaction of

18

identifying information is particularly appropriate here, because the public’s interest in the name of

19

the terminated driver is likely insignificant, as the exact name is irrelevant to the legal issues in this

20

case. By contrast, the public’s interest in the substance of the communications is likely greater, as

21

the substance is relevant to analyzing the merits of Uber’s pending summary judgment motion. See

22

id. Consequently, the Court denies the request to seal Exhibit 21. Exhibit 21 shall be filed on the

23

public docket with the driver’s name and personal identifying information redacted.

24

///

25

///

26

///

27
1

28

Indeed, the Court has doubts Exhibit 21 would be sealable even under the “good cause”
standard that applies to discovery materials that are not submitted along with dispositive pleadings.

3

1

2.

2

Uber claims Exhibit 22 is sealable because it contains “potentially embarrassing facts about a

Exhibit 22

3

non-party to this litigation whose account was deactivated, and who is identified by name.” Uber

4

does not otherwise contend Exhibit 22 is sealable, and the Court is convinced that it is not. Thus,

5

Exhibit 22 shall be filed on the public docket, but with the driver’s personal identifying information

6

redacted. Here, that appears to be the individual’s email address.

7

3.

8

Uber contends Exhibit 23 is sealable because it contains “commercially valuable information

9

Exhibit 23

regarding Uber’s strategies and procedures developed to improve its competitiveness against other
similar technology companies.” Again, Uber’s description appears false.2 Exhibit 23 is a

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

spreadsheet listing drivers who were “fired” from the Uber platform or otherwise received

12

performance warnings from Uber. For example, one driver is listed as “deactivating, low rating,

13

english level.” Docket No. 221-7. Another simply states “Deactivated for inactivity. 5 months.”

14

Id. This type of information does not appear commercially sensitive, but even if it is, it certainly

15

does not amount to a trade secret. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Nor is the information

16

exceptionally sensitive. See Apple, 2012 WL 2913669, at *2.

17

However, Uber does once again properly recognize the non-party drivers’ privacy interests in

18

the reasons for their termination--some of which are potentially embarrassing. Once again, the

19

parties shall file the relevant exhibit on the public document with driver identifying information

20

redacted.3

21

4.

22

Uber contends that Exhibit 25 is sealable because it includes “commercially valuable, non-

Exhibit 25

23

public information regarding Uber’s strategies, policies, and technological capabilities that it

24

developed to bolster its competitiveness against other similar technology companies.” This

25

representation is seriously misleading. Exhibit 25 contains two emails with the subject “ANOTHER

26
2

27
28

Uber’s counsel are warned that submitting inaccurate or misleading statements to the Court
in a declaration is sanctionable conduct that will not be condoned or tolerated.
3

Here, it should likely be sufficient to simply redact the drivers’ last names.

4

1

TERRIBLE DRIVER.” The first email reads, in its entirety: “Get rid of this guy. We need to make

2

some serious cuts of guys below 4.5.” Docket No. 221-8. The second email reads, in its entirety:

3

“Done via phone! Remote banning -- I love it.” Id. This document is clearly not sealable.

4

5.

5

Uber asks the Court to seal Exhibit 26 because it contains an email where an Uber employee

Exhibit 26

6

uses “coarse language” which could potentially embarrass that employee. This is not grounds to

7

seal Exhibit 26. As noted above, the “mere fact that the production of records may lead to a

8

litigant’s embarrassment” will not compel the court to seal its records. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at

9

1179. The Court notes that, by contrast to the driver’s names which the Court will require Uber to
redact in other exhibits, the coarse language used by the employee here is relevant to the issues to be

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

decided in this summary judgment motion. Moreover, the employee is not a true non-party to this

12

litigation--he is employed by a party to this action and the communication was sent from his

13

business email account in the scope of his employment. In any event, an employee’s use of the “f-

14

word” in a business communication is not so shocking in today’s world to warrant sealing of this

15

document. The request is denied.

16

6.

17

Uber claims Exhibit 27 “contains commercially valuable information regarding Uber’s

Exhibit 27

18

strategies, policies and procedures.” Docket No. 225. Again, the Court is not convinced. Exhibit

19

27 is an email terminating a driver because Uber’s business was then “slower than normal,” and

20

explaining that Uber looks to terminate drivers in the bottom 5% of its active driver pool as

21

determined by customer feedback. Docket No. 221-10. The Court does not believe this is a “trade

22

secret” or otherwise “exceptionally sensitive” information. Indeed, Uber admits in its publically

23

filed summary judgment motion that it terminates drivers based on customer feedback. See Docket

24

No. 211 at 4 (explaining that Uber may “deactivate the accounts of drivers who fall below

25

Defendant’s quality standards, based on the average rating they have received from passengers or a

26

pattern of serious complaints from passengers”). However, the Court will order Uber to redact the

27

relevant driver’s email address for privacy reasons, again noting that the email address is not

28

5

1

relevant to any of the issues in this litigation, nor would the public have any real interest in its

2

disclosure.

3

7.

4

Exhibit 30 is a 22 question multiple choice exam Uber apparently uses to test its drivers’

Exhibit 30

5

“city knowledge and understanding of the functionality of the Uber App.” Docket No. 225. Again,

6

Uber claims these materials are sealable because they contain “commercially valuable information.”

7

Uber does not point to specific facts that indicate that the questions (notably provided without

8

answers) here are so sensitive to rise to the level of a trade secret or similar. The Court has reviewed

9

the exhibit and is not convinced this is the case. The request to seal Exhibit 30 is denied.
8.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Exhibit 32 is a series of emails between employees of Uber and 7x7 Executive

Exhibit 32

12

Transportation, a non-party that trains Uber drivers and which produced the emails pursuant to a

13

document subpoena. 7x7’s counsel filed a declaration averring that portions of Exhibit 32 contain

14

confidential information regarding such information as 7x7’s product pricing. See, e.g., Docket No.

15

221-12 at Bates page 453. The Court agrees that 7x7’s pricing structure and pricing negotiations

16

could be considered trade secrets, and further finds that such information is minimally relevant (if at

17

all) to the issues raised in Uber’s summary judgment motion. Thus, 7x7’s request to seal this

18

specific information is granted. Specifically, 7x7 may redact the very last paragraph on Bates page

19

454, and paragraph number three on Bates page 453. All other information shall be publically filed.

20

9.

21

Exhibit 33 contains training materials (largely in the form of a 26 question quiz without the

Exhibit 33

22

corresponding answers) developed by 7x7 transportation. 7x7 argues the materials contain

23

proprietary mnemonic devices and other training techniques that are commercially sensitive. The

24

Court has reviewed the exhibit and concludes that the public’s interest in its disclosure outweighs

25

7x7’s interest in maintaining the secrecy of the exhibit. Moreover, the Court notes that unlike other

26

///

27

///

28

///

6

1

non-party materials this Court will permit to be filed under seal, these materials are directly relevant

2

to the issues at the very heart of Uber’s summary judgment motion--namely, the level of control

3

Uber exercised over its drivers’ work. Thus, 7x7’s request to seal Exhibit 33 is denied.

4

This order disposes of Docket No. 221.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: January 27, 2015

8

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

7