Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 2237

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting #1237 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part #1278 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #1291 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #1316 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting #1328 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #1352 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part #1354 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #1367 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying #1374 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part #1434 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part #1437 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

WAYMO LLC,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No.17-cv-00939-WHA (JSC)

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

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 1237, 1278, 1280, 1291, 1316,
1328, 1352, 1354, 1367, 1374, 1434, 1437

The parties in this action have sought to file voluminous information under seal, only a

13

portion of which is properly sealable. This Order addresses the parties’ Administrative Motions to

14

File under Seal] at Docket Nos. 1237, 1278, 1280, 1291, 1316, 1328, 1352, 1354, 1367, 1374,

15

1434, and 1437. After carefully considering the parties’ submissions, the motions to seal are

16

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth in the table below.

17

Civil Local Rule 79-5 requires that a party seeking sealing “establish[] that the document,

18

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

19

under the law” (i.e., is “sealable”). Civil L.R. 79-5(b). The sealing request must also “be

20

narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Id. Any request for sealing must be

21

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

22

portions thereof, are sealable.” Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). If the party filing the motion is not the

23

party who designated the material at issue as confidential, then the designating party has four days

24

to file a declaration in support of sealing or the motion to seal will be denied. Civil L.R. 79-5(e).

25
26
27
28

1

Ruling

Dkt. No.

2
Dkt. No. 1237

Dkt. No. 1237-4

The Court DENIES the motion to seal because Plaintiff has failed
to show that the highlighted portion contains confidential
information.

Dkt. No. 1278

Dkt. No. 1278-4

The Court DENIES the motion to seal the highlighted portions
except as to the named companies on pages 2 and 3 and the
amount of the June 2015 valuation on page 4.

Dkt. No. 1278-6

The Court GRANTS the motion to seal the highlighted portions of
the Deposition of Larry Page. The deposition would otherwise
reveal non-public information on Kitty Hawk’s internal leadership,
research, and prototype development.

Dkt. No. 1278-7
to Dkt. No.
1278-10

The Court GRANTS the motion to seal Exhibits 3-5 in their
entirety because the exhibits discuss or refer to confidential details
regarding the corporate ownership, corporate leadership, business
models, prototype development and testing, and employee
recruitment efforts of Kitty Hawk.

Dkt. No. 127812

The Court DENIES the motion to seal except as to the highlighted
portion at page 51, lines 17, 19-25; page 6, lines 1-12, 21-25; and
page 7, line 1, 5-14, 21-23.

Dkt. No. 127814

The Court GRANTS the motion to seal the highlighted portions
except for references to Kitty Hawk, which is publicly known.

Dkt. No. 127816

The Court DENIES the motion to seal the highlighted portions
except as to page 3, lines 2-4,10-14; and page 5, lines 2, 9-10, 1324.

Dkt. No. 127817

The Court DENIES the motion as to the date of the bonus and
GRANTS as to amount of the bonus.

Dkt. No. 127818
to Dkt. No.
1278-20

3

The Court GRANTS the motion to seal the documents in their
entirety because the exhibits discuss, or refer to Waymo’s
confidential business information, including internal Waymo
documents describing its market analyses, plans, forecasts, and
financial information, as well as confidential valuations of
Waymo, disclosure of which could harm Waymo’s competitive
standing.

Dkt. No. 1280-3

The Court DENIES the motion to seal because the highlighted
portions do not contain confidential information.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25

Dkt. No. 1280

26
27
28

1

Page numbers throughout this Order refer to the ECF page number.
2

Dkt. No. 1291-4

The Court DENIES the motion to seal because Plaintiff has not
sufficiently demonstrated that the highlighted portions contain
confidential information.

Dkt. No. 1291-6

The Court DENIES the motion to seal the highlighted
portions except as to page 8, lines 4-10; page 10, lines 17-25; and
page 11, lines 2-10, which discuss Waymo’s confidential business
information, including internal valuations.

Dkt. No. 1395-2

The Court DENIES the motion to seal because the highlighted
portions do not contain confidential information.

Dkt. No. 1395-4

The Court DENIES the motion to seal because the outlined
portions do not contain confidential information.

Dkt. No. 1395-6

The Court DENIES the motion to seal because the highlighted
portions do not contain confidential information.

Dkt. No. 1395-8

The Court DENIES the motion to seal as to the text of the email on
page 2. The Court GRANTS the motion to seal as to the
highlighted portions of the chart on pages 3-6 except as to the
second highlighted row because the chart discusses Waymo’s
security measures and protocols and detailed computer forensics.

Dkt. No. 139510

The Court DENIES the motion to seal the highlighted portions
except for the name of the database on page 8.

Dkt. No. 139512

The Court DENIES the motion to seal the highlighted portions
except as to employee email addresses on pages 2-3.

Dkt. No. 139514

The Court DENIES the motion to seal except as to the highlighted
portion of ¶ 15 and the chart at ¶ 18, which discuss Waymo’s
computer forensics and employee email addresses.

Dkt. No. 139516

The Court DENIES the motion to seal because the highlighted
portions do not contain confidential information.

Dkt. No. 139520

The Court DENIES the motion to seal except as to the highlighted
portion of ¶ 15 and the chart of ¶ 18, which discuss Waymo’s
computer forensics and employee email addresses.

Dkt. No. 139522

The Court DENIES the motion to seal the highlighted portions
except as to the employee email addresses and the URL address.

Dkt. No. 139528

Dkt. No. 1291

1

The Court GRANTS the motion to seal the highlighted portions
because the redactions are narrowly tailored to information
regarding Google’s computer forensics.

2
3
4
5

Dkt No. 13162

6
7
8
9
10

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
2

28

Docket No. 1316 is revised by Docket. No. 1365. This order applies to both docket numbers, as
revised by Docket No. 1365.
3

Dkt. No. 1328

Dkt. No. 1328

The Court DENIES the motion to file under seal because
Defendants did not file a supporting declaration.

Dkt. No. 13523

Dkt. No. 1404-2

The Court GRANTS the motion to seal the outlined boxes because
they contain information related to the timeline of Uber’s LiDAR
sensors.

Dkt. No. 1404-4

The Court GRANTS the motion to seal the outlined boxes except
as to pages 10, 11, and 12 lines 6-9 because the portions are
narrowly tailored to the technology’s commercialization schedule.

Dkt. No. 1354

Dkt. No. 1354

The Court DENIES the motion to file under seal because
Defendants did not file a supporting declaration.

Dkt. No. 1367

Dkt. No. 136710

The Court GRANTS the motion to seal except as to rows 15 and
19. The sealed portions are narrowly tailored to descriptions of
internal Google security tools used to detect and investigate
wrongdoing.

Dkt. No. 136713

The Court GRANTS the motion to seal the exhibit in its entirety,
which contains investigative steps taken by Google’s security
engineers.

Dkt. No. 136715

The Court DENIES the motion to seal because the highlighted
portions do not contain confidential information.

Dkt. No. 136716

The Court GRANTS the motion to seal the document in its entirety
because the document is from Google’s internal, Google-only
intranet server and contains Waymo’s highly confidential business
strategy and planning.

Dkt. No. 1374-4

The Court DENIES the motion except as to the highlighted
portions at the bottom of page 4, which discuss Uber’s
autonomous vehicle commercialization schedule.

Dkt. No. 1374-6

The Court DENIES the motion to file under seal because
Defendants have not sufficiently demonstrated that the highlighted
portions contain confidential information.

Dkt. No. 1374-8

1

The Court DENIES the motion to file under seal because the
highlighted portion does not contain confidential information.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Dkt. No. 1374

20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
3

28

Docket No. 1352 is revised by Docket No. 1404. This order applies to both docket numbers, as
revised by Docket No. 1404.
4

The Court DENIES the motion to file under seal because the
highlighted portion does not contain confidential information.
The Court DENIES the motion to file under seal because the
parties have failed to sufficiently demonstrate that the exhibit
contains confidential information.

Dkt. No. 1434-8

The Court DENIES the motion to file under seal because the
parties have failed to sufficiently demonstrate that the exhibit
contains confidential information.

Dkt. No. 143410 (1471-4)

The Court DENIES the motion to file under seal because the
highlighted portion does not contain confidential information.

Dkt. No. 143412

The Court DENIES the motion to file under seal because the
exhibit does not contain confidential information.

Dkt. No. 143414 (1471-4)

The Court DENIES the motion to file under seal because the
parties have failed to demonstrate that the highlighted portions
contain confidential information.

Dkt. No. 143416 (1471-6)

The Court GRANTS the motion to file under seal because the
redactions are narrowly tailored to employee email addresses.

Dkt. No. 143418
(1471-8)

The Court DENIES the motion to file under seal except as to the
URL links on page 2.

Dkt. No. 1437-3

The Court DENIES the motion to file under seal because the
highlighted portion does not contain confidential information.

Dkt. No. 1437-5

The Court DENIES the motion to file under seal because the
highlighted portion does not contain confidential information.

Dkt. No. 1437-9

The Court DENIES the motion to file under seal except as to the
URL addresses on pages 3 and 7.

Dkt. No. 143710/Dkt. No.
1472-2

The Court GRANTS the motion to seal the highlighted portions,
which are narrowly tailored to email addresses and phone numbers
of Waymo employees.

Dkt. No. 143711/Dkt. No.
1472-4

2

Dkt. No. 1434-4

Dkt. No. 1434-6

Dkt. No. 1434

1

The Court DENIES the motion to file under seal because the
highlighted portion does not contain confidential information.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
Dkt. No. 14374

16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26

This Order disposes of Docket No. 1237, 1278, 1280, 1291, 1316, 1328, 1352, 1354, 1367,
1374, 1434, and 1437.

27
4

28

Docket No. 1437 is revised by Docket No. 1472. This order applies to both docket numbers, as
revised by Docket No. 1472.
5

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 20, 2017

3
4
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10

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
6