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)

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