Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 2492

ORDER RE #1822 #1919 #2004 MOTION TO CLOSE COURTROOM by Judge Alsup. (whalc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/18/2018)

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

No. C 17-00939 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;
OTTOMOTTO LLC; and OTTO
TRUCKING LLC,

ORDER RE MOTION TO
CLOSE COURTROOM

Defendants.
/

16

After two continuances of the trial date and in advance of the third final pretrial

17

conference in this action for trade secret misappropriation, this order DENIES plaintiff’s motion

18

to close the courtroom for trial, subject to the conditions described herein.

19

Plaintiff Waymo LLC previously moved to close the courtroom for trial during

20

presentation of (1) the actual substance of Waymo’s alleged trade secrets; (2) the terms

21

of Google Inc.’s mergers and acquisitions and Waymo’s collaboration with Lyft, Inc.;

22

(3) Waymo’s non-public financial information, projections, and business plans; and

23

(4) confidential information of Waymo’s current and former employees (Dkt. No. 1822).

24

A coalition of media organizations then moved to intervene for the limited purpose of opposing

25

Waymo’s motion (Dkt. No. 1919). Lyft also moved to intervene for the limited purpose of

26

supporting Waymo’s motion (Dkt. No. 2004). Both requests to intervene were unopposed and

27

granted (see Dkt. No. 2309 at 160:13–18, 172:22–24).

28

1

In its response to the media coalition, Waymo stated that it would narrow its request

2

prior to trial and would ask to close the courtroom only where absolutely necessary.

3

For example, Waymo agreed with the media coalition that limited closure to protect trade

4

secrets should extend only to the actual substance of alleged trade secrets, not to any and all

5

references thereto. Waymo also committed to meet and confer with defendants to come up with

6

ways to minimize the use of information that might necessitate courtroom closure. For

7

example, Waymo proposed redacting the names of its employees from exhibits dealing with

8

employee compensation and bonus information. Waymo also offered to work with the media

9

coalition and defendants to come up with a procedure for prompt availability of a redacted

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

public trial transcript (see Dkt. No. 2005 at 3–4, 8–9).
In a similar spirit of compromise, Lyft proposed less drastic measures of protecting

12

sensitive business information without closing the courtroom. For example, Lyft suggested that

13

the actual text of confidential agreements be displayed only to the jury while relevant arguments

14

and testimony are limited to a level of abstraction that would get the point across without

15

revealing specific confidential terms. Lyft also offered to meet and confer with the parties to

16

come up with an appropriate protocol (see Dkt. No. 2004 at 1–2, 5). The media coalition did

17

not object to the suggestion of less drastic measures (see Dkt. No. 2049 at 4).

18
19
20

Having considered Waymo and the intervenors’ arguments on this matter, the Court
ORDERS

as follows:
1.

The screens in the courtroom for this trial can accommodate three

21

different levels of visibility controlled by the Courtroom Deputy. First, evidence

22

can be displayed to the witness on the stand. Second, evidence can be displayed

23

to the jury. Third, evidence can be displayed to the gallery. These screens can

24

also be used in combination, e.g., evidence can be displayed to both the witness

25

and the jury but not to the gallery. In the Court’s view, these safeguards will

26

suffice to protect most, if not all, of the truly sealable information that will be

27

presented at trial without necessitating total closure of the courtroom. In all

28
2

1

events, counsel will be responsible for informing the Courtroom Deputy when

2

and how to limit the visibility of evidence displayed on courtroom screens.

3

2.

The parties shall MEET AND CONFER and agree on protocols to

4

ensure that, wherever possible, counsel and witnesses refer to truly sealable

5

information at a level of abstraction that will allow the public to remain in the

6

courtroom while more detailed information is shown on screens to witnesses or

7

the jury. This includes alleged trade secrets that, for example, can be referred to

8

by designated numbers and subject matter for most purposes.

9

3.

Both sides and Lyft shall identify with particularity each specific

item of evidence or argument for which they contend courtroom closure remains

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

truly necessary, according to the following protocol:

12

(a)

A prior order required each side to maintain a

13

rolling, written list of witnesses it intends to call at trial (Dkt. No.

14

2340). The same lists shall note when, according to the proffering

15

side, items of evidence or argument to be presented with the

16

named witnesses might require courtroom closure.

17

(b)

The Court will review the rolling lists of proffered

18

evidence or argument, if any, for which the parties or Lyft contend

19

courtroom closure remains truly necessary and determine on a

20

case-by-case basis if closure will be required.

21

(c)

Witnesses whose testimony will truly necessitate

22

courtroom closure must be called first or last on any given day of

23

trial unless a better way to deal with the problem can be found.

24

Except to the extent stated herein, Waymo’s motion to close the courtroom is DENIED.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27
28

Dated: January 18, 2018.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3