Antman, et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Filing 52

ORDER by Judge Laurel Beeler granting #48 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting #50 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. The relevant information in [ECF No. 49], and the whole of [ECF No. 51], are sealed. (lblc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
SASHA ANTMAN,

12

Case No. 15-cv-01175-LB

Plaintiff,
13
v.

ORDER ON SEALING MOTIONS

14
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

15

[ECF Nos. 48, 50]

Defendant.
16
17

INTRODUCTION

18

This order addresses two motions by which Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc., seeks to file

19

certain material under seal. The first motion (ECF No. 48)1 would seal discrete items in Uber‟s

20

motion directing a third party to comply with a subpoena. (The latter motion, the target of the first

21

sealing request, is ECF No. 49.) The second sealing motion (ECF No. 50) would seal the whole of

22

the parties‟ current joint discovery letter, including its exhibits (ECF No. 51). Uber filed both

23

motions on November 10, 2015; neither has been opposed. See Civ. L.R. 7-11(b). Uber has shown

24

good cause to seal the relevant material. The court grants both motions.
* * *

25
26
27
28

1

Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the
ECF-generated page numbers at the tops of documents.
15-cv-01175-LB

1

ANALYSIS

2

Local Rule 79-5 governs sealing motions. Reflecting the applicable case law, that rule states:

3

“A sealing order may issue only upon a request that establishes that the document, or portions

4

thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the

5

law.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). Such material is “sealable.” Id. The motion must be “narrowly tailored to

6

seal only the sealable material . . . . ” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(B). The motion to seal must thus point

7

to only as much information as is necessary to protect the party‟s legitimate interest in protecting

8

sensitive material. A “good cause” standard applies to requests to seal non-dispositive motions.

9

E.g., Kamakana v. City and Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2006).
“Nondispositive motions „are often “unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

of action,”‟ and, as a result, the public‟s interest in accessing dispositive materials does „not apply

12

with equal force‟ to non-dispositive materials.” Pintos v. Pac Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678

13

(9th Cir. 2010) (quoting in part Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). Discovery motions are considered

14

non-dispositive for purposes of sealing analysis. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80.

15

Uber‟s first motion (ECF No. 48) would seal IP addresses and domain names in (ECF No. 49),

16

Uber‟s motion to enforce a third-party subpoena. Uber calls this “sensitive information regarding

17

Uber‟s investigation” to determine “who hacked into Uber‟s database” in early 2014. (ECF No. 48

18

at 3; ECF No. 48-1 at 2 (¶ 2).) The company writes: “Public disclosure of this information could

19

possibly jeopardize Uber‟s ongoing investigation by giving” the target of that probe “insight into

20

the status of Uber‟s investigation and thus potentially allowing him to take steps to further conceal

21

his identity . . . .” (ECF No. 48-1 at 2 (¶ 2).)

22

Uber‟s second motion (ECF No. 50) asks to seal the whole of the parties‟ current joint

23

discovery letter as well as its accompanying exhibits. The discussion in that letter indeed embodies

24

the “suggestion that the third party” who is named throughout that letter and its related exhibits

25

“may possess relevant information regarding Uber‟s May 2014 data breach.” (ECF No. 50 at 2;

26

ECF No. 50-1 at 2 (¶ 4).) Disclosing this material publicly, Uber argues, could cause that third

27

party “unnecessary reputational damage.” (ECF No. 50 at 2; ECF No. 50-1 at 2 (¶ 4).) The court

28

has reviewed the pertinent material and agrees.
2
15-cv-01175-LB

1

Both motions show good cause for sealing. In similar cases, this court has recognized the need

2

to safeguard investigations that would uncover the identity of anonymous wrongdoers. The desire

3

to protect third parties‟ reputations, too, can be a sound basis for sealing discovery material. See

4

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (“[I]f „good cause‟ is shown in discovery, a district court may issue

5

„any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment,

6

oppression, or undue burden or expense[.]‟”) (quoting in part Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)). Furthermore,

7

because both motions deal with non-dispositive matters, questions of discovery, there is no

8

significant public interest in having open access to this material. See Pintos, 605 F.3d at 978;

9

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80.
* * *

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

CONCLUSION

12

The court grants Uber‟s sealing motions. The court seals the discrete information identified at

13

(ECF No. 48 at 3-4), which appears in the target motion (ECF No. 49). The court also seals the

14

whole of the parties‟ current joint discovery letter, including its exhibits (ECF No. 51).

15

This disposes of ECF Nos. 48 and 50.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated: November 19, 2015
______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
15-cv-01175-LB