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

Filing 243

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL (Docket No. 210). Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 2/2/15. (emclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2015)

Download PDF
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. 210) 13 14 15 On December 4, 2014, Defendant Uber Technologies submitted an administrative motion to 16 file documents under seal that had been designated as confidential by both Plaintiffs and third-party 17 Lyft. Docket No. 210. The Court denied the motion without prejudice on January 26, 2015, because 18 neither the Plaintiffs nor Lyft filed a supporting declaration as required by this Court’s Local Rules. 19 See Docket No. 230. The Court gave Plaintiffs and Lyft an additional four days to file a compliant 20 supporting declaration. Id. Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a declaration that same day. Docket No. 232. 21 Lyft, however, did not file a supporting declaration. 22 A. 23 Applicable Legal Standard As recently explained in detail in this Court’s Order on Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to 24 seal, O’Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. C-13-3826 EMC, 2015 WL 355496, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 25 Jan. 27, 2015), a party seeking to seal a judicial record submitted in connection with a dispositive 26 motion 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 1 Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 11-cv-1846-LHK, 2012 WL 2913669, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. 2 Jul. 17, 2012). 3 B. 4 5 Application of the Compelling Reasons Standard The Court now applies the compelling reasons standard to the discovery materials sought to be sealed in Uber’s administrative motion: 6 1. 7 Plaintiffs seek to maintain under seal certain interrogatory responses of the four named Plaintiffs’ Tax Return Information such information is highly personal and confidential, and that compelling reasons do not support 10 making this information public. Plaintiffs acknowledge, however, that the public does have some 11 For the Northern District of California Plaintiffs that contain detailed information regarding their personal tax returns. Plaintiffs argue that 9 United States District Court 8 interest in how the named Plaintiffs reported their income to the IRS, and agree that Defendants’ 12 motion for summary judgment, which summarizes this information, should be unsealed. The Court 13 agrees that the information about the Plaintiffs’ tax filings contained in Defendants’ motion is 14 relevant to the issues at the heart of Uber’s motion, and that this information should be disclosed to 15 the public. But the Court is not convinced that there are compelling reasons to disclose more 16 detailed information about the named Plaintiffs’ taxes given that the gist of the information is 17 already disclosed in the unsealed brief, and therefore will grant Plaintiffs’ request to keep the 18 interrogatory responses under seal. 19 2. 20 Uber filed certain documents produced by non-party Lyft under seal, as presumably required Lyft Records (Exhibit 6) 21 by the terms of a protective order between the parties and Lyft. Lyft did not file a supporting 22 declaration to maintain the confidentiality of its records either time this Court afforded it the 23 opportunity to do so. Therefore, Uber’s request to maintain these records under seal is denied. See 24 N.D. Cal. Local Rule 79-5(e). 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 2 1 2 Uber shall file an un-redacted version of its summary judgment motion and a copy of Exhibit 6 on the public docket. Plaintiffs’ interrogatory responses shall remain under seal. 3 This order disposes of Docket No. 210. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: February 2, 2015 7 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 8 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 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?