Philliben et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 99

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Response due by 9/7/2016. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on August 30, 2016. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MATTHEW PHILLIBEN, et al.,

Case No. 14-cv-05615-JST

Plaintiffs,
8
v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

9
10

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Re: ECF No. 98

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Concurrently with this order, the Court has issued a redacted version of its Order Denying

14

Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. That order includes an analysis of

15

Plaintiffs’ total potential recovery, as measured by the total revenue Uber has earned from its

16

challenged Safe Rides Fee (the “total revenue figure”). The Court previously allowed this

17

information to be sealed in relation to a different document. ECF No. 94. Accordingly, the Court

18

has redacted that figure and any references to it in its most recent order.

19

The total revenue figure occupies an important place in the Court’s order. In a class action

20

settlement, “judges have the responsibility of ensuring fairness to all members of the class

21

presented for certification,” and “must carefully consider whether a proposed settlement is

22

fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable.” Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 953 (9th Cir.

23

2003) (emphasis added) (citation omitted). Perhaps the most important factor in determining

24

whether the proposed settlement falls within the range of reasonableness “is ‘plaintiffs' expected

25

recovery balanced against the value of the settlement offer.’” Cotter v. Lyft, Inc., No. 13-CV-

26

04065-VC, 2016 WL 1394236, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2016) (quoting In re High-Tech Employee

27

Antitrust Litig., No. 11-CV-02509-LHK, 2014 WL 3917126, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2014)). The

28

total revenue earned by a defendant from a challenged practice is the most obvious, and often the

1
2

only sensible, measurement of plaintiffs’ best-case total expected recovery.
Courts “start with a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” Ctr. for Auto

3

Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). “The

4

presumption of access is based on the need for federal courts, although independent ‒ indeed,

5

particularly because they are independent ‒ to have a measure of accountability and for the public

6

to have confidence in the administration of justice.” Id. (citation omitted). For the public at large

7

to understand the Court’s order, and for other litigants to determine its persuasive value, they must

8

understand the Court’s reasoning. That is possible only if they also know the essential facts on

9

which the Court based its ruling. Now that the Court has issued its order, the public’s right to

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

know the total revenue figure is higher than it was when the Court sealed that information.
Moreover, Uber has committed, as part of the settlement, to cease charging a Safe Rides

12

Fee to its customers, ECF No. 95 at 11, and therefore its interest in keeping confidential its

13

revenues from that fee has become more attenuated. Though the Court acknowledges the

14

arguments made by Uber in its Motion for Partial Modification, ECF No. 93, it now concludes that

15

this attenuated interest is substantially outweighed by the public’s right to access.

16

Accordingly, the parties are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the total revenue

17

figure contained in the redacted version of this Court’s Order Denying Motion for Preliminary

18

Approval of Class Action Settlement should not be unsealed. Any responses to this order shall be

19

filed within five court days of its issuance, at which time the Court will take the issue under

20

submission. If no response is filed, the Court will issue an unredacted copy of its order.

21
22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 30, 2016
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
2