Ehret v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Filing 119

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting in Part and Denying in Part 100 103 113 Administrative Motions to File Under Seal. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CAREN EHRET,
Plaintiff,

8

v.

9
10

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendant.

11

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IIN PART
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
FILE UNDER SEAL
Docket Nos. 100, 103, 113

In connection with Plaintiff‟s motion for class certification, the parties have filed three

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Case No. 14-cv-00113-EMC

13

motions to file under seal. Docket Nos. 100, 103, 113. Plaintiff‟s motions to seal are based on

14

materials designated by Uber as confidential, and Uber has timely filed declarations in support of

15

each of the motions to seal. Docket Nos. 102, 115. The Court has reviewed those declarations,

16

and now grants in part and denies in part the administrative motions to seal.

17

A.

18

Applicable Legal Standard
In determining whether to grant a motion to file under seal in a dispositive motion, the

19

Court “must conscientiously balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks

20

to keep certain judicial records secret.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,

21

1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation and internal modifications omitted). If the Court “decides to seal

22

certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual

23

basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (citation omitted).

24

“Compelling reasons sufficient to outweigh the public‟s interest in disclosure and justify sealing

25

court records exist when such court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes, such

26

as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements,

27

or release trade secrets.” Id.

28

“A „good cause‟ showing under Rule 26(c) will suffice to keep sealed records attached to

1

non-dispositive motions.” Id. at 1180. This lower standard applies “for a sealed discovery

2

document attached to a non-dispositive motion [because] the usual presumption of the public‟s

3

right of access is rebutted.” Id. at 1179 (citation omitted). Id. at 1179. The rationale is that “the

4

public has less of a need for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions

5

because these documents are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause

6

of action.” Id. Thus, “[t]he public policies that support the right of access to dispositive motions,

7

and related materials, do not apply with equal force to non-dispositive materials.” Id.
In determining whether a motion for class certification is a dispositive motion, district

8
9

courts have noted that “[t]he Ninth Circuit has not ruled as to whether a motion for class

reasons standard applies.” English v. Apple Inc., Case No. 14-cv-01619-WHO, 2015 U.S. Dist.

12
For the Northern District of California

certification is a dispositive motion for the purposes of determining whether the compelling

11

United States District Court

10

LEXIS 104017, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2015) (citation omitted). While the courts in this district

13

generally treat motions for class certification as nondispositive, they have also acknowledged that

14

a motion for class certification can be dispositive where the “denial of class status means that the

15

stakes are too low for the named plaintiffs to continue the matter.” Id. (citation omitted). Thus, in

16

English, the district court applied the compelling reasons standard because the individual damages

17

were “sufficiently limited that it is not plausible that she would continue to litigate the case if

18

certification is denied.” Id. at *5. Here, because the Court does not deny class status, the motion

19

arguably is not dispositive and the Court will apply the good cause standard. Even if the

20

compelling reason standard were applied, the results below would not differ. See Kamakahi v.

21

Am. Soc’y for Reprod. Med., Case No. 11-cv-01781-JCS, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117234, at *3

22

(N.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2015).

23

B.

Plaintiff‟s Opening Motion

24

1.

Exhibit C

25

The Court denies the motion to seal with respect to Exhibit C. In its declaration in support

26

of Plaintiff‟s motion to seal, Uber does not argue that Exhibit C should be sealed. In any case, the

27

information in Exhibit C has largely been publicly filed by Uber as part of its own exhibits. See

28

Docket No. 106 (Mohrer Dec.), Exh. A; Docket No. 107 (Holt Dec.), Exh. A; Docket No. 108
2

1

(Penn Dec.), Exh. A. References to Exhibit C in Plaintiff‟s memorandum of points and authorities

2

must be unredacted.

3

2.

Exhibits D and H

4

The Court denies the motion to seal with respect to Exhibits D and H. Uber contends that
the e-mail messages were generated by Uber‟s internal engineering and software development

6

tracking systems, and contains information about Uber‟s proprietary internal database

7

management systems while discussing software engineering issues. However, the e-mails do not

8

appear to contain any proprietary information about the database management system, but reads as

9

a normal e-mail. Furthermore, the e-mails are relevant to the merits of the case, discussing the tip

10

calculations that are at issue here. References to Exhibits D and H in Plaintiff‟s memorandum of

11

points and authorities must be unredacted.

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

5

3.

Exhibit E

13

The Court denies the motion to seal with respect to Exhibit E, but finds that Exhibit E may

14

be filed with appropriate redactions. Exhibit E is a spreadsheet containing the driver number,

15

name, and earnings. Uber contends that the information is proprietary to Uber and the individual

16

drivers identified in the spreadsheet. The Court finds that the majority of the document may be

17

redacted -- including the specific numbers, names, and earnings by the individual drivers -- as this

18

concerns privacy interests. However, the pertinent information at line 1 of every page, which

19

labels the columns as “net,” “gross,” “metered fare,” “metered + 12% tip,” and “minus 2% cc

20

charge” should not be redacted, as this is relevant to the merits of the case.

21

4.

22

The Court grants the motion to seal with respect to Exhibit F, on the ground that it contains

23

Exhibit F

Uber‟s sensitive, proprietary business strategy and financial information.

24

5.

Exhibit G

25

The Court denies the motion to seal with respect to Exhibit G, which is an e-mail thread

26

that discusses updating the website and app to reflect changes to the default gratuity. Uber argues

27

that it involves a user interface change and contains internal discussion regarding the

28

implementation of that change. However, it does not appear that this is proprietary information, as
3

1

it only describes changes that will be made to publicly viewed webpages and the Uber app. There

2

are no strategic discussions of why the change is being made, and the one substantive comment

3

comes in response to the changes that are being implemented, rather than contributing to Uber‟s

4

strategy for making the change in the first place. References to Exhibit G in the Memorandum

5

should be unredacted.

6

6.

Exhibit J

7

The Court grants the motion to seal with respect to Exhibit J. Uber argues that Exhibit J

such information would permit its competitors to estimate Uber‟s financial information. District

10

courts have found that where sales volume is at issue, compelling reasons to seal the information

11

have been shown, as such information could be used to harm competitive standing. See TriQuint

12
For the Northern District of California

contains information about the number of trips taken during the proposed class period, and that

9

United States District Court

8

Semiconductor v. Avago Techs., Ltd., No. CV 09-1531-PHX-JAT, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143942,

13

at *12-13 (D. Az. Dec. 13, 2011).

14

However, not all references to Exhibit J in Plaintiff‟s memorandum of points and

15

authorities need be redacted. Specifically, on page 4, lines 20 and 23-24, Plaintiff redacts “one

16

million” with respect to the estimated number of potential class members. On that same page, line

17

22, Plaintiff also redacts the exact number of rides given between April 1, 2012 and March 25,

18

2013. The precise number may be redacted, but the general number on lines 20 and 23-24 may

19

not given that this number is vague and unspecific.

20

7.

Exhibit O, P, Q, R, and S

21

The Court grants the motion to seal with respect to Exhibits O, P, R, and S because these

22

exhibits concern internal discussions about Uber‟s proprietary business strategy, including pricing

23

and marketing decisions. Thus, there is a good and compelling reason to seal these documents.

24

However, Exhibit Q must not be submitted under seal. Exhibit Q is comprised solely of a draft of

25

a blog post, which is largely the same as that which is publicly available on Uber‟s website at

26

http://newsroom.uber.com/2012/07/choice-is-a-beautiful-thing/ (last accessed October 20, 2015).

27

The exhibit contains no strategy regarding the contents of the blog post, and there are no

28

comments about the draft. Because the Court denies the motion to seal with respect to Exhibit Q,
4

1

references to Exhibit Q in Plaintiff‟s memorandum of points and authorities must be unredacted.

2

C.

Uber‟s Opposition

3

1.

Arthur Roberts Declaration, Exhibits A and B

4

The Court grants Uber‟s motion to seal, specifically to redact the names, addresses,

5

telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of users of the Uber App, as well as the e-mail addresses

6

of Uber employees. The Court has “recognize[d] the non-party‟s privacy interests, and finds that

7

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

8

personal identifying information . . . .” O’Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc., Case No. C-13-3826 EMC,

9

2015 WL 355496, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 205). While the Uber employees are employed by a
party in this case and have a lower privacy interest, their specific e-mail addresses are not relevant

11

to the merits of the motion of this case. Exhibits A and B may be filed under seal.

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

2.

Arthur Roberts Declaration, Exhibit D and Allen Penn Declaration, Exhibit C

13

The Court denies Uber‟s motion to redact these two exhibits. Uber seeks to redact

14

Plaintiff‟s e-mail address. However, there is little privacy interest because Plaintiff has already

15

publicly filed exhibits with her unredacted e-mail address. See Mot. Exh. A.

16

D.

17

Plaintiff‟s Reply Memorandum
The Court grants the motion to seal with respect to Exhibits C1 through C5. Again, Uber

18

seeks to redact the names and e-mail addresses of Uber employees and Uber users, as well as

19

pickup and drop-off locations and payment information. As explained above, the Court finds that

20

the privacy interests implicated warrant redaction.

21

However, the motion to seal is denied with respect to Plaintiff‟s Reply Memorandum. The

22

Reply Memorandum quotes from the substantive portions of Exhibits C1 through C5, but does not

23

use any of the identifying information of Uber users or employees that the Court will allow to be

24

redacted. Thus, the Reply Memorandum must be publicly filed without any redactions.

25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 2, 2015
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
5