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

Filing 531

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Response due by 5/4/2016. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 4/27/16. (bpfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DOUGLAS O'CONNOR, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

15
16

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

HAKAN YUCESOY, et al.,

13
14

Case No. 15-cv-0262-EMC

v.

11
12

Case No. 13-cv-03826-EMC

Plaintiffs,
v.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,
Defendants

17
18

On April 21, 2016, Plaintiffs in O’Connor v. Uber Technologies and Yucesoy v. Uber

19

Technologies moved for preliminary approval of a class settlement. Plaintiffs also filed an

20

administrative motion to file under seal the unredacted versions of Plaintiffs’ motion for

21

preliminary approval, the declaration of Plaintiffs’ counsel, and the Class Settlement and Release.

22

See Case No. 13-3826-EMC, Docket No. 516. Uber then filed a memorandum in support of the

23

administrative motion to file under seal, arguing that the redacted information pertained to Uber’s

24

trade secrets, i.e., the miles driven “on app,” gross fares, and Uber’s Service Fees on those gross

25

fares. See Case No. 13-3826-EMC, Docket No. 523 at 1. Uber also seeks to file under seal

26

information on Uber’s most recent valuation and the number of class member opt-outs that would

27

trigger Uber’s option to rescind and revoke the settlement. Id. at 4.

28

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) requires that the claims of a certified class “may be

this rule “is to protect the unnamed members of the class from unjust or unfair settlements

3

affecting their rights.” In re Syncor ERISA Litig., 516 F.3d 1095, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008).

4

Accordingly, before a court approves a settlement, it must conclude that the settlement is

5

“fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable.” In re Heritage Bond Litig., 546 F.3d 667, 674-75

6

(9th Cir. 2008); see also In re Bluetooth Headset Products Liability Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 946 (9th

7

Cir. 2011). This inquiry requires that a court balance factors such as the strength of the plaintiffs’

8

case, the risk and expense of further litigation, the risk of maintaining class action status, the

9

amount offered in settlement, the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings,

10

the experience and views of counsel, the presence of a government participant, and the reaction of

11

the class members to the proposed settlement). See Churchill Village, L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec., 361

12
For the Northern District of California

settled, voluntarily dismissed, or compromised only with the court’s approval.” The purpose of

2

United States District Court

1

F.3d 566, 575 (9th Cir. 2004) (listing factors to determine fairness and adequacy).

13

At the preliminary approval stage, this Court considers if the settlement: (1) appears to be

14

the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations; (2) has no obvious deficiencies; (3)

15

does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives or segments of the class;

16

and (4) falls within the range of possible approval. Harris v. Vector Mktng. Corp., Case No. C-08-

17

5198-EMC, 2011 WL 1627973, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2011). In considering whether the

18

settlement falls within the range of possible approval, “courts primarily consider plaintiffs’

19

expected recovery balanced against the value of the settlement offer.” Vasquez v. Coast Valley

20

Roofing, Inc., 670 F. Supp. 2d 1114, 1125 (E.D. Cal. 2009); see also Cotter v. Lyft, Inc., Case No.

21

13-cv-4065-VC, -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2016 WL 1394236, at *4 (“In determining whether the

22

proposed settlement falls within the range of reasonableness, perhaps the most important factor to

23

consider is plaintiffs’ expected recovery balanced against the value of the settlement offer”) (N.D.

24

Cal. Apr. 7, 2016) (internal quotation omitted).

25

Here, a significant portion of the information that the parties seek to file under seal is

26

highly material to an assessment of whether Plaintiffs’ settlement falls within the range of possible

27

approval. Specifically, the parties seek to redact all information related to Plaintiffs’ expected

28

recovery, including the potential monetary value of their claims. See Case No. 13-3826-EMC,
2

Docket No. 516-3 at 24-25. The parties are to explain why the potential value of the claims

2

should not be publicly disclosed given the importance of this information in the Court’s

3

determination of the fairness and adequacy of a proposed class action settlement. Compare with

4

Cotter, 2016 WL 1394236, at *8 (discussing the total value of the plaintiffs’ expense

5

reimbursement claim, which was calculated by multiplying the estimated number of miles driven

6

during the settlement period by the IRS rate); Philliben v. Uber Techs., Inc., Case No. 14-cv-5615-

7

JST, Docket No. 91 at 5 (denying motion to file under seal information related to the average

8

amount of the Safe Rides Fee paid by the putative class members, Uber’s total amount of revenue

9

from Safe Rides Fees, the estimate of the plaintiffs’ maximum potential recovery if the case was

10

litigated, and the percentage comparison between the estimate and proposed settlement payout).

11

The parties’ response must be filed by Wednesday, May 4, 2016.

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

1

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16
17

Dated: April 27, 2016
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3