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

Filing 829

ORDER REGARDING 826 CORRECTIVE NOTICE TO CLASS AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 828 PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 09/06/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Corrective Notice)(emclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/6/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DOUGLAS O'CONNOR, et al., Plaintiffs, 8 v. 9 10 Case No. 13-cv-03826-EMC UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants. 11 ORDER REGARDING CORRECTIVE NOTICE AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL For the Northern District of California United States District Court Docket No. 826, 828 12 13 On August 31, 2017, the Court concluded that Class Counsel’s e-mail communication to 14 Class Members was misleading and that a corrective notice was required to protect the rights of 15 absent class members. See Docket No. 825. The Court ordered the parties to meet-and-confer and 16 to propose the contents of the corrective notice, as well as a means to distribute it. Id. The Court 17 18 has reviewed the parties’ proposal and discusses each issue below. See Docket No. 826. This order also addresses Plaintiffs’ request to seal portions of her declaration concerning the number 19 of arbitrations filed as a result of the misleading e-mail communication. See Docket No. 828. 20 A. 21 Contents of Corrective Notice Neither party’s proposed notice is adequate. Plaintiffs’ proposed notice does not 22 communicate to Class Members that the Court determined its prior e-mail communication was 23 misleading and does not clearly explain their rights. Uber’s proposed notice contains detailed and 24 confusing information about issues that are not essential to correcting any wrongful reliance that 25 26 may have resulted from the misleading e-mail. In lieu of the parties’ proposed notices, the Court adopts the notice attached to this order. Furthermore, rather than attaching the Court’s August 31, 27 2017 sanctions order to the notice, the Settlement Administrator is ordered to post a copy of said 28 1 order on the settlement website. 2 B. Method of Delivery the Settlement Administrator will be ordered to deliver the notice within 7 days of this order. The 5 costs of notice will be borne by Class Counsel because Class Counsel’s misleading e-mail 6 necessitated the corrective notice. As explained in the Court’s August 31 order, assessing costs is 7 authorized based on Class Counsel’s violation of the protective order and the California Rules of 8 Professional Conduct. See In re McKesson HBOC Inc. Securities Litig., 126 F.Supp.2d 1239 9 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (ordering law firm that sent misleading e-mail to class members to pay costs of 10 corrective notice); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A) (authorizing sanctions for violations of discovery 11 orders); Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(2) (authorizing sanctions for violations of pretrial orders, including 12 For the Northern District of California The notice should be delivered by a neutral party rather than Class Counsel. Accordingly, 4 United States District Court 3 protective orders). 13 C. Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to Seal 14 Class Counsel requests that portions of her declaration stating the number of individual 15 arbitrations filed pursuant to the misleading e-mail communication be sealed. See Docket No. 16 828-4. Class Counsel argues the information should be sealed on the basis that it “contains 17 information related to attorney-client communications, as well as information in which the class 18 member has an interest in privacy.” Docket No. 828 at 2. To support sealing of court documents, 19 a party must overcome the “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, 20 including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commnc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 21 (1978). If a filing is “more than tangentially related to the merits” of the underlying case, a party 22 must demonstrate “compelling reasons” to overcome the presumption of public access to court 23 records. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). If a 24 filing is not more than tangentially related, then a party need only demonstrate “good cause” to 25 justify sealing. Id. at 1097; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); Local C.R. 79-5(b) (“A sealing order 26 may issue only upon a request that establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are 27 privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.”). The 28 instant declaration is only tangentially related to the merits of the case, so Plaintiffs need only 2 1 demonstrate “good cause” here. 2 Plaintiffs have not demonstrated good cause to seal all of the redacted information. 3 Plaintiffs’ claim that the information is privileged is unfounded. The mere fact that information is 4 “related” to attorney-client communication, Docket No. 828 at 2, does not establish that it is an 5 attorney-client communication protected by privilege. Further, the paragraphs in question do not 6 disclose the contents of any such communications. The privilege does not apply. However, the 7 Court agrees that there is good cause to redact the name of the class member discussed in the 8 declaration to protect that individual’s privacy interests. Thus, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion 9 to seal only with respect to the name of the class member and the caption and case-number of the individual arbitration matter filed on behalf of that class member. The remaining information may 11 not be sealed. Plaintiffs shall file a redacted version of the declaration consistent with this order. 12 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 This order disposes of Docket No. 826. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 16 Dated: September 6, 2017 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 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?