Yucesoy v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 220

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting in Part and Denying in Part 204 Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

10

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

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12

15
16

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL
O’Connor, Docket No. 516
Yucesoy, Docket No. 204

HAKAN YUCESOY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

13
14

Case No. 15-cv-0262-EMC

Plaintiffs,

8
9

Case No. 13-cv-03826-EMC

DOUGLAS O'CONNOR, et al.,

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

17
18

I.

INTRODUCTION

19

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

20

Technologies, Inc. filed a motion for preliminary approval of a settlement. O’Connor, Docket No.

21

518. Plaintiffs also filed an administrative motion to file under seal certain portions of the motion

22

and attached declarations and exhibits. O’Connor, Docket No. 516. The Court subsequently

23

issued an Order to Show Cause, requesting further briefing on the motion to file under seal given

24

that “a significant portion of the information that the parties seek to file under seal is highly

25

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

26

approval.” O’Connor, Docket No. 531 at 2. Having reviewed the parties‟ filings, the Court

27

GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs‟ motion to file under seal.

28

II.

1
2

A.

DISCUSSION

Applicable Legal Standard
In determining whether to grant a motion to file under seal, the Court “must

3
4

conscientiously balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep

5

certain judicial records secret.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th

6

Cir. 2006) (citation and internal modifications omitted). Where the records pertain to a dispositive

7

motion, sealing must be justified by a compelling reason and supported by an articulated factual

8

basis. Id. “Compelling reasons sufficient to outweigh the public‟s interest in disclosure and

9

justify sealing court records exist when such court files might have become a vehicle for improper
purposes, such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate

11

libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id.
In order to grant a motion to seal documents when applying the “compelling reasons”

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

13

standard, this Court must “base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis

14

for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. at 1179 (citations omitted). As a

15

number of courts in this district have suggested, “only documents of exceptionally sensitive

16

information” will be kept from the public. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-cv-

17

1846-LHK, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99188, 2012 WL 2913669, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2012)

18

(emphasis added); see also Oracle Am. v. Google, Inc., No. 10-cv-3561-WHA, at ECF No. 540

19

(noting that sealing motions “will be denied outright” unless counsel identified “a limited amount

20

of exceptionally sensitive information that truly deserves protection”).

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

1

B.

Application of the Compelling Reasons Standard1

2

1.

Information Related to Value of the Settlement

3

The Court DENIES the request to redact information about the potential value of each of

relevant to assessing whether Plaintiffs‟ settlement falls within the range of possible approval. By

6

contrast, Uber‟s reasons for keeping this information under seal are largely hypothetical. For

7

example, Uber suggests that information on the value of the claims could be used to determine the

8

trends of usage or the effect of competitor‟s marketing efforts from 2010 to 2016. See O’Connor,

9

Docket No. 523-5 (Barnes Dec.), at ¶ 7. However, Uber does not explain how an aggregate

10

number of all miles driven or fares received over a period of several years could result in a

11

determination of trends of usage, particularly when the information is not broken down by year or

12
For the Northern District of California

Plaintiffs‟ claims.2 As this Court noted in its Order to Show Cause, this information is highly

5

United States District Court

4

any other period. Similarly, Uber theorizes that competitors “could compare the mileage

13

information for the O’Connor class with the mileage information for California as a whole to

14

quantify the breakdown of Uber‟s vehicle classes.” See Barnes Dec. at ¶ 6; O’Connor, Docket

15

No. 558. Again, Uber provides no explanation for how this is possible, given that the non-

16

certified class members were not based on vehicle class but whether an individual signed up to

17

drive directly with Uber under their individual name, or were paid directly and in their individual

18

name. See O’Connor, Docket No. 342 (Class Certification Ord.). This definition crosses vehicle

19

classes, such that the non-certified class members could very well include numerous individuals

20

who signed up under fictitious or corporate names but drove solely for uberX. More importantly,

21
1

22
23
24
25
26

The parties do not suggest that the Court should apply the standard applicable for non-dispositive
motions. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179; see also O’Connor, Docket No. 523 (Uber
Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs‟ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal) (applying
compelling reasons standard). Given the significant public interest in this case, and the effect the
settlement will have on a number of on-going litigation, the Court finds that the compelling
reasons standard is appropriate. See also Keirsey v. eBay, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-1200-JST, 2013
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147573, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2013) (explaining that “a motion seeking the
Court‟s preliminary approval of the settlement of the case may be effectively dispositive,” and
concluding that “the „compelling reasons‟ standard is the appropriate standard.”).
2

27
28

In their response to the Order to Show Cause, Uber withdrew its request to seal Plaintiffs‟
estimates of the aggregate value of their claims. See O’Connor, Docket No. 558. Uber did not
withdraw its request to seal Plaintiffs‟ estimates of the individual claims, i.e., the value of the
expense reimbursement claim for vehicle use or the tips claims.
3

1

the information about the potential value of each claim is highly material to the assessment of the

2

fairness and adequacy of the settlement.

3

The Court therefore finds that Uber has failed to provide a compelling reason for why this

4

information should remain under seal, particularly when balanced against the public‟s significant

5

interest in this information.
Uber‟s Valuation

6

2.

7

The Court DENIES the request to redact Uber‟s most recent valuation because this

8

information is publicly available. A simple Google search of “Uber valuation” yields numerous

9

articles and websites that provide the same valuation. See Eric Newcomer, Uber Raises Funding

Valuation Put at $62.5 Billion After a New Investment Round, N.Y. Times, Dec. 3, 2015; Uber

12
For the Northern District of California

at $62.5 Billion Valuation, Bloomberg Techn., Dec. 3, 2015; Mike Isaac & Leslie Picker, Uber

11

United States District Court

10

(company), Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uber_(company) (last visited May 6, 2016).

13

3.

14

The Court GRANTS the request to redact the number of opt-outs that would trigger

15

Number of Opt-Outs

Uber‟s option to rescind and revoke the settlement.
III.

16
17

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the request to file under seal the number

18

of opt-outs that would trigger Uber‟s option to rescind and revoke the settlement, and DENIES

19

the remainder of the motion to file under seal. Plaintiffs must file their motion for preliminary

20

approval and the accompanying declarations and exhibits, redacted consistent with this Order, by

21

Monday, May 9, 2016.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25
26
27

Dated: May 6, 2016
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

28

4