Dulberg v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 125

ORDER DENYING 66 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 70 72 106 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL. By Judge Alsup. (whalc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2018)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9

12
13

v.

ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO FILE
UNDER SEAL

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and
RASIER LLC,

14

Defendants.
/

15
16

No. C 17-00850 WHA

Plaintiffs,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

MARTIN DULBERG, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,

In our circuit, courts start with a “strong presumption in favor of access” when deciding

17

whether to seal records. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.

18

2006) (citation omitted). To seal records in connection with a “dispositive” motion or a motion

19

that “more than tangentially relate[s] to the merits of a case,” “compelling reasons supported by

20

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

21

favoring disclosure” are required. See id. at 1178–79 (quotations and citations omitted); see

22

also Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). A

23

particularized showing of “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), however,

24

suffices to warrant sealing in connection with a non-dispositive motion. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at

25

1179–80.

26

Civil Local Rule 79-5 requires that administrative motions to file under seal be

27

accompanied by “[a] declaration establishing that the document sought to be filed under seal, or

28

portions thereof, are sealable.” For example, “[t]he publication of materials that could result in
infringement upon trade secrets has long been considered a factor that would overcome [the]

1

strong presumption” in favor of access and provide compelling reasons for sealing. Apple Inc.

2

v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011). Compelling reasons may also warrant

3

sealing for “sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing,”

4

especially where the public has “minimal interest” in the information because it “is not

5

necessary to the public’s understanding of the case.” See Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435

6

U.S. 589, 598 (1978); Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1221–22 (Fed.

7

Cir. 2013) (applying the law of our circuit).

8

In our district, “[r]eference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to

portions thereof, are sealable.” Moreover, administrative motions to file under seal must “be

11
For the Northern District of California

designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or

10

United States District Court

9

narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” C.L.R. 79-5. Supporting

12

declarations may not rely on vague boilerplate language or nebulous assertions of potential

13

harm but must explain with particularity why any document or portion thereof remains sealable

14

under the applicable legal standard. Requests not narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of

15

sealable material as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5 shall be denied.

16

With these principles in mind, this order GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the

17

parties’ administrative motions as stated in the tables below. To the extent their motions are

18

denied, each movant shall file revised versions of their documents consistent with this order on

19

the public docket by DECEMBER 6 at NOON.

20

*

*

*

LIST OF ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS.

21
22

DKT. NO.

DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED

RULING

23

66-4

Declaration of Andrew J. Dressel

The supporting declaration fails to show
particularized good cause because it
merely concludes in generic terms that
this information was designated as
confidential under a previous protective
order. Moreover, this request has not
been narrowly tailored as required by
Civil Local Rule 79-5 and is
accordingly DENIED.

24
25
26
27
28
2

1

66-6

Exhibit A

The supporting declaration fails to show
particularized good cause because it
merely concludes in generic terms that
this information was designated as
confidential under a previous protective
order. Aside from defining terms, the
document does not disclose data that
might harm Uber’s competitive
advantage. Moreover, this request has
not been narrowly tailored as required
by Civil Local Rule 79-5 and is
accordingly DENIED.

66-8

Exhibit B

The supporting declaration fails to show
particularized good cause because it
merely concludes in generic terms that
this information was designated as
confidential under a previous protective
order. It is unclear how the disclosure
of this information might harm Uber’s
competitive advantage, nor is there any
private driver identification information.
Moreover, this request has not been
narrowly tailored as required by Civil
Local Rule 79-5 and is accordingly
DENIED.

66-10

Exhibit C

Since the underlying motion and its
final disposition remain attenuated from
the merits, the public has little interest
in the sealing of this information. The
supporting declaration, however, fails to
show particularized good cause because
it merely concludes in generic terms
that this information was designated as
confidential under a previous protective
order. It is unclear how the disclosure
of the Uber’s driver fees (already
publically known) might harm Uber’s
competitive advantage. Moreover, this
request has not been narrowly tailored
as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5
and is accordingly DENIED.

70-4

Portions of Uber’s Opposition to Class
Certification.

Good cause warrants sealing of the
portion at page 7: 1–17 to prevent the
disclosure of Uber’s underlying
analysis. This justification does not,
however, extend to other portions which
describe the facts important to the
overall case. It is unclear how
disclosure of — for example — various
payouts under plaintiff’s theory would
harm Uber’s competitive advantage.
This request is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1

70-5

Entirety of Jason Dowlatabadi
declaration.

The supporting declaration avers that
disclosure of some information in this
declaration could allow competitors to
imitate or disrupt Uber’s business
arrangements. While that risk seems
minimal with respect to the particular
information contained therein, the
public’s interest in said information also
remains minimal. Under these
circumstances, sufficient good cause
has been shown to justify sealing. This
request is GRANTED.

70-6

Entirety of exhibit A to Declaration
of Jason Dowlatabadi.

The supporting declaration fails to show
particularized good cause because it
merely concludes in generic terms that
this information was designated as
confidential under a previous protective
order. Aside from defining terms, the
document does not disclose data that
might harm Uber’s competitive
advantage. Moreover, this request has
not been narrowly tailored as required
by Civil Local Rule 79-5 and is
accordingly DENIED.

70-7

Entirety of exhibit F to Declaration
of Randall W. Edwards.

The supporting declaration fails to show
particularized good cause as it merely
states that the document might be sealed
“out of an abundance of caution” in
case the plaintiff wishes to seek sealing.
In light of the preference for more
access to information and because this
request has not been narrowly tailored
as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5,
this request is DENIED.

70-8

Entirety of exhibit G to Declaration
of Randall W. Edwards.

Good cause warrants the sealing of the
entire document to prevent disclosure of
private employee contact information
and confidential internal information.
This request is GRANTED.

70-9

Entirety of exhibit H to Declaration
of Randall W. Edwards.

Good cause warrants the sealing of the
entire document to prevent disclosure of
private employee contact information
and confidential internal information.
This request is GRANTED.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

1

70-10

Entirety of exhibit I to Declaration of
Randall W. Edwards.

The supporting declaration fails to show
particularized good cause as it merely
states that the document might be sealed
“out of an abundance of caution” in
case the plaintiff wishes to seek sealing.
In light of the preference for more
access to information and because this
request has not been narrowly tailored
as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5,
this request is DENIED.

Entirety of exhibit K to Declaration
of Randall W. Edwards.

The supporting declaration fails to show
particularized good cause to seal this
document. The information contained
in exhibit K merely aggregates total
payment and does not disclose
proprietary variables. This request is
DENIED.

70-13

Portions of exhibit L to Declaration
of Randall W. Edwards.

Good cause warrants sealing of page 9
FN 28 to prevent the disclosure of
Uber’s underlying analysis. This
justification does not, however, extend
to other portions of this exhibit which
merely describe the facts important to
the overall case. It is unclear how
disclosure of vague statements that
certain percentages of drivers would be
better or worse off under competing
interpretations of the agreement would
harm Uber’s competitive advantage.
This request is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART.

72-4

Portions of reply in further support of
motion for class certification and
appointment of class counsel.

Reference to a stipulation or protective
order that allows a party to designate
certain documents as confidential is not
sufficient to establish that a document,
or portions thereof, are sealable. The
supporting declaration fails to show
particularized good cause to seal this
document as it merely states that the
information is designated as
confidential. This request is DENIED.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

70-11

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

1

72-8

Entirety of exhibit 2, Dulberg
deposition dated January 4, 2018.

Reference to a stipulation or protective
order that allows a party to designate
certain documents as confidential is not
sufficient to establish that a document,
or portions thereof, are sealable. The
supporting declaration fails to show
particularized good cause to seal this
document as it merely states that the
information is designated as
confidential. Moreover, this request has
not been narrowly tailored as required
by Civil Local Rule 79-5 and is
accordingly DENIED.

72-12

Entirety of declaration of Andrew J.
Dressel.

Good cause warrants sealing of
paragraphs six and seven to prevent the
disclosure of Uber’s underlying
analysis. This justification does not,
however, extend to other portions of the
declaration as they pertain to data in
general that would not harm Uber’s
competitive advantage. This request is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART.

72-13

Entirety of exhibit A to declaration
of Andrew J. Dressel.

Reference to a stipulation or protective
order that allows a party to designate
certain documents as confidential is not
sufficient to establish that a document,
or portions thereof, are sealable. The
supporting declaration fails to show
particularized good cause to seal this
document as it merely states that the
information is designated as
confidential. It is unclear how ride data,
without any disclosure of the analysis
behind it, would harm Uber’s
competitive advantage. Moreover, this
request has not been narrowly tailored
as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5
and is accordingly DENIED.

106-4

Portions of exhibit 3 to declaration of
Paul B. Maslo.

Good cause warrants the sealing of the
portions identified to prevent disclosure
of Uber’s underlying calculations. This
request is GRANTED.

106-6

Portions of exhibit 4 to declaration of
Paul B. Maslo.

Good cause warrants the sealing of the
portions identified to prevent disclosure
of Uber’s underlying calculations. This
request is GRANTED.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6

1
2

106-8

Portions of exhibit 5 to declaration of
Paul B. Maslo.

3
4

Good cause warrants sealing of page 4
FN 1 to prevent the disclosure of Uber’s
underlying analysis. This justification
does not, however, extend to other
portions of the declaration. This request
is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART.

5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: November 20, 2018.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7