Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 2307

NOTICE AND ORDER RE #2281 #2283 #2298 #2299 SEALING OF LETTERS FROM OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY AND RICHARD JACOBS by Judge Alsup. (whalc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/29/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/29/2017: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B) (whalc2S, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9

WAYMO LLC,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16

No. C 17-00939 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.

NOTICE AND ORDER RE
SEALING OF LETTERS FROM
OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY AND
RICHARD JACOBS

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;
OTTOMOTTO LLC; and OTTO
TRUCKING LLC,
Defendants.
/

On November 22, the Court received a letter from the Office of the United States

17

Attorney with information bearing directly on the merits of this civil action and a request that

18

the letter be subject to the protective order herein (Dkt. No. 2260-1). That letter has been kept

19

provisionally under seal until now. Yesterday, the Court received a second letter from that

20

office, appended hereto as Exhibit A, with a request that both letters remain hidden from public

21

view (but provided to the parties). In support of this request, however, the second letter cites

22

only general policies with little applicability to our highly unusual situation, especially since the

23

office itself volunteered the information in the first letter. The request is therefore DENIED.

24

Relatedly, plaintiff Waymo LLC filed an administrative motion to file under seal a

25

heavily-redacted letter dated May 5, 2017, from Richard Jacobs’s attorney, among other things,

26

pursuant to defendants’ confidentiality designations (Dkt. No. 2281-5). Waymo itself does not

27

seek to redact any of the materials encompassed by this administrative motion. Jacobs also

28

filed separate administrative motions specifically to designate the Jacobs letter as confidential
and keep it from public view (Dkt. Nos. 2298–99). The Jacobs letter contains information that

1

bears directly on the merits of this action. This order finds no compelling reasons that would

2

outweigh the public’s right to access and justify the extensive redactions sought by defendants

3

and Jacobs. Nor does Federal Rule of Evidence 408 support Jacobs’s motion, since that rule

4

governs the admissibility of negotiations evidence, not the sealing of public records. Jacobs’s

5

administrative motions are therefore DENIED and Waymo’s administrative motion is DENIED IN

6

PART

7

highlighting in Exhibit B will be preserved. In the Court’s view, those redactions adequately

8

balance the concerns articulated by defendants and Jacobs with the public’s right to access.

9

This is without prejudice to any motion by other entities, foreign or domestic, to unseal further

only with respect to the Jacobs letter, except that the redactions marked in green

portions of the Jacobs letter. The Court DEFERS ruling on the remainder of Waymo’s

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

administrative motion, which concerns matters separate from the Jacobs letter, pending the

12

submission of supporting declarations, if any, from defendants to justify their designations.

13

Jacobs also filed an administrative motion to file entirely under seal a letter objection to

14

his Court-ordered testimony, citing the presence of “personal identifying, confidential, and

15

sensitive information” and requesting “similar confidential treatment” on par with the

16

November 22 letter from the Office of the United States Attorney (see Dkt. No. 2283-1). As

17

stated, however, the latter will be unsealed. The generic reference to “personal identifying,

18

confidential, and sensitive information,” untethered to any particularized facts or specific

19

passages, fails to justify the wholesale sealing requested by Jacobs. This order finds that no

20

portion of Jacobs’s objection warrants sealing. This administrative motion is also DENIED.

21

The two letters from the Office of the United States Attorney, the Jacobs letter (save and

22

except for the redactions marked in green highlighting in Exhibit B), and Jacobs’s objection

23

shall be unsealed and re-filed on the public docket pursuant to this order unless emergency

24

relief is obtained from the court of appeals by DECEMBER 13 AT NOON. The Clerk shall

25

transmit a copy of this order and its exhibits to the Office of the United States Attorney TODAY.

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27
28

Dated: November 29, 2017.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2