Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 2382

ORDER RE #2373 #2374 #2381 REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL REDACTIONS TO JACOBS LETTER by Judge Alsup. (whalc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2017)

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

Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER RE REQUESTS FOR
ADDITIONAL REDACTIONS
TO JACOBS LETTER

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

15
16

No. C 17-00939 WHA

A prior order dated November 29 approved limited redactions to the May 5 letter from

17

counsel for Richard Jacobs and denied several other sealing requests. That order set a deadline

18

for today at noon to obtain emergency relief from the court of appeals (Dkt. No. 2307). Instead

19

of timely seeking appellate relief, on December 12, Jacobs filed a request for leave to file a

20

motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 2374). The request proposes additional redactions to the

21

Jacobs letter. It recites but fails to meet the standard for reconsideration. To give just two

22

nonexhaustive examples, the new request proposes redactions that Jacobs did not seek in his

23

original motion to keep portions of the Jacobs letter under seal (compare, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 2299-2

24

at 2 with 2373-3 at 2). The new request also provides, without justification, information that

25

Jacobs’s original motion did not present to the Court prior to the November 29 order (compare

26

Dkt. Nos. 2299-1 with 2373-5). Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the new request and will

27

accept Jacobs’s proposed redactions numbered 1–3, 11–13 (as to the names only), and 18 (as to

28

the description of the employee only), in addition to the redactions previously approved in the
November 29 order.

1

Subject to the foregoing, Jacobs’s request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration

2

(Dkt. No. 2374) is DENIED. Pursuant to the November 29 order, the letters from the Office of

3

the United States Attorney and Jacobs’s objection will be unsealed and re-filed on the public

4

docket unless emergency relief is obtained from the court of appeals by today at noon. Public

5

re-filing of the Jacobs letter, however, is postponed until DECEMBER 15 AT NOON to give

6

Jacobs an opportunity to obtain emergency relief from the court of appeals regarding this order.

7

Jacobs’s accompanying administrative motion to file portions of Martha Boersch’s

8

declaration under seal (Dkt. No. 2373) is GRANTED IN PART to the extent stated above. Since

9

the Jacobs letter is already scheduled for public re-filing, no separate public re-filing by Jacobs

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

is necessary in connection with this order.
Yesterday, defendants also filed a request for one additional redaction to the Jacobs

12

letter (Dkt. No. 2381). Their request is subsumed within Jacobs’s proposed redaction number

13

12, which, as stated, the Court will accept and include in the public re-filing of the Jacobs letter.

14

It is therefore DENIED AS MOOT.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: December 13, 2017.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2