Reardon et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Filing 156

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL re 149 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Unopposed filed by Uber Technologies, Inc. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on May 6, 2016. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JAMES LATHROP, et al.,

Case No. 14-cv-05678-JST

Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT'S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL
Re: ECF No. 149

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. moves to file under seal portions of Exhibits A, D, E,

13

and F to the Declaration of Sarah J Crooks in Support of Uber’s Motion for Summary Judgment

14

(“Crooks Declaration”); the entirety of Exhibits G, I, and J to the Crooks Declaration; and portions

15

of the Declaration of Kevin Roth (“Roth Declaration”). ECF No. 149. The Court previously

16

granted Uber’s motion as to Exhibits A, I, and J to the Crooks Declaration and portions of the

17

Roth Declaration. ECF No. 154. Plaintiffs have now filed a declaration in support of sealing. See

18

ECF No. 155. The Court will grant in part and deny in part the motion as to Exhibits D–G to the

19

Crooks Declaration.

20

I.

21

LEGAL STANDARD
A party seeking to seal a document filed with the court must (1) comply with Civil Local

22

Rule 79-5; and (2) rebut the “a strong presumption in favor of access” that applies to all

23

documents other than grand jury transcripts or pre-indictment warrant materials. Kamakana v.

24

City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citation and quotations

25

omitted).

26

With respect to the first prong, Local Rule 79-5 requires, as a threshold, a request that

27

(1) “establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade secret

28

or otherwise entitled to protection under the law”; and (2) is “narrowly tailored to seek sealing

1

only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). An administrative motion to seal must also fulfill

2

the requirements of Civil Local Rule 79-5(d). “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that

3

allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a

4

document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A).
With respect to the second prong, the showing required for overcoming the strong

5
6

presumption of access depends on the type of motion to which the document is attached. “[A]

7

‘compelling reasons’ standard applies to most judicial records. This standard derives from the

8

common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records

9

and documents.’” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting
Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 n.7 (1978)). To overcome this strong

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record must “articulate compelling reasons

12

supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public

13

policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79 (internal citations omitted).1

14

“‘[C]ompelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and

15

justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for

16

improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal,

17

circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting

18

Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. The Nixon court also noted that the “common-law right of inspection has

19

bowed before the power of a court to insure that its records” are not used as “sources of business

20

information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing.” 435 U.S. at 598.
The Ninth Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, has identified a trade secret in this context as

21
22

“any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one’s business, and

23

which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use

24

it.” In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Restatement of Torts §

25
1

26
27
28

Records attached to motions that are only “tangentially related to the merits of a case” are not
subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d
1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, a party need only make a showing under the good cause
standard of Rule 26(c) to justify the sealing of the materials. Id. at 1097. A court may, for good
cause, keep documents confidential “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment,
oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).
2

1

757, cmt. b). In that case, applying Kamakana and Nixon, the Ninth Circuit reversed a district

2

court for refusing to seal information that qualified under this standard. In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298

3

Fed. App’x. at 569. The Federal Circuit has similarly concluded that under Ninth Circuit law,

4

detailed product-specific financial information, customer information, and internal reports are

5

appropriately sealable under the “compelling reasons” standard where that information could be

6

used to the company’s competitive disadvantage. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 727 F.3d

7

1214, 1226, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
A district court must “articulate [the] . . . reasoning or findings underlying its decision to

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

seal.” Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011).
II.

DISCUSSION
The present motion to file under seal concerns documents associated with Defendant

12

Uber’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Under the test most recently articulated by Center for

13

Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, 809 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2016), a motion for summary judgment

14

involves issues that are more than “tangentially related to the merits of the case,” thereby requiring

15

the Court to apply the compelling reasons standard.

16
17

Uber seeks to seal portions of Exhibits D–G as Plaintiffs have designated the transcripts as
confidential. See ECF No. 149.

18
19
20
21
22

Document
Name

Description and Requested Redaction

Court’s Ruling

Crooks Decl.,
Ex. D

Excerpts of the deposition of Plaintiff Jennifer Reilly: Tr. at
10:1-11:25, 32:1-25

Denied.

Crooks Decl.,
Ex. E

Excerpts of the deposition of Plaintiff James Lathrop: Tr. at
76:1-77:25

Granted.

Crooks Decl.,
Ex. F

Excerpts of the deposition of Plaintiff Jonathan Grindell: Tr.
at 66:1-25

Granted.

Crooks Decl.,
Ex. G

Excerpts of the deposition of Plaintiff Justin Bartolet: Entire
document

Granted as to Tr.
112:1–25.

23
24
25
26
27

Exhibit D to the Crooks Declaration contains excerpts of the deposition transcript of

28

Plaintiff Jennifer Reilly. Plaintiffs contend that this portion of Exhibit D need not be sealed. ECF
3

1

No. 155, Silver Decl. ¶ 3. The Court accordingly denies the motion to file under seal as to Exhibit

2

D.
Exhibit E to the Crooks Declaration contains excerpts of the deposition transcript of

3
4

Plaintiff James Lathrop. The transcript at 76:1–77:25 contain sensitive information belonging to

5

Mr. Lathrop, including his license plate number and driver’s license number. Plaintiffs argue that

6

“[i]f revealed, this information could be used for improper purposes.” Silver Decl. ¶ 4.

7

Compelling reasons exist to seal this portion of Exhibit E. The requested sealing is also narrowly

8

tailored.
Exhibit F to the Crooks Declaration contains excerpts of the deposition transcript of

10

Plaintiff Jonathan Grindell. The transcript at 66:1–25 contains sensitive information belonging to

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

Mr. Grindell, including his driver’s license number and a portion of his social security number.

12

Plaintiffs argue that “[i]f revealed, this information could be used for improper purposes.” Silver

13

Decl. ¶ 5. Compelling reasons exist to seal this portion of Exhibit F. The requested sealing is also

14

narrowly tailored.
Exhibit G to the Crooks Declaration contains excerpts of the deposition transcript of

15
16

Plaintiff Justin Bartolet. Uber filed Exhibit G under seal in its entirety, but Plaintiffs have since

17

designated only page 112 of the transcript as “Confidential.” Silver Decl. ¶ 6. The transcript at

18

112:1–25 contains sensitive, private information belonging to Mr. Bartolet, such as his driver’s

19

license number. Plaintiffs argue that “[i]f revealed, this information could be used for improper

20

purposes.” Id. Compelling reasons exist to seal page 112. As Plaintiffs do not seek to seal the

21

remainder of the transcript, the request is also narrowly tailored.
The Court has viewed the documents and redacted information and finds that Plaintiffs

22
23

have identified compelling reasons to justify sealing portions of Exhibits E, F, and G to the Crooks

24

Declaration. Plaintiffs also narrowly tailored to seal only sealable information, as Local Rule 79-5

25

requires.

26

III.

27
28

CONCLUSION
The Court grants in part and denies in part the administrative motions to file under seal at

ECF No. 149. “[T]he document[s] filed under seal will remain under seal and the public will have
4

1

access only to the redacted version, if any, accompanying the motion.” Civil L. R. 79-5(f)(1).

2

The Court will not consider those portions of the documents that are unsealable unless the filing

3

party files the document in the public record without the redactions the Court has rejected, in

4

conformance with this Order, within seven days from the date of this Order.

5

The hearing date and briefing schedule on the underlying motion for summary judgment

6

shall remain as originally set.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10

Dated: May 6, 2016
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5