Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 435

ORDER RE SEALING IN CONNECTION WITH MOTION FOR PROVISIONAL RELIEF. Signed by Judge Alsup on 5/15/2017. (whalc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/15/2017: #1 Exhibit A) (whalc2S, COURT STAFF).

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 435 Filed 05/15/17 Page 1 of 2

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

Plaintiff,
v.

16
17

ORDER RE SEALING IN
CONNECTION WITH MOTION
FOR PROVISIONAL RELIEF

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

14
15

No. C 17-00939 WHA

Plaintiff Waymo LLC’s administrative motion to file under seal portions of the order on
its motion for provisional relief (Dkt. No. 432) is GRANTED, subject to the following:
For the reasons stated in the aforementioned order, the Court finds that the redactions

18

appended hereto as Exhibit A, and no others, are appropriate at this time. Accordingly, that

19

version of the redacted order will be filed on the public docket at the conclusion of any appeal

20

therefrom or upon further order of the Court. Until then, it will remain under seal. In other

21

words, if either side appeals immediately from the order on Waymo’s motion for provisional

22

relief, they will be obligated to present the redaction issue to the court of appeals. On the other

23

hand, if neither side appeals at this stage, then the redaction issue will be dealt with in the

24

future, as explained below.

25

On a related point, this civil action has produced and will no doubt continue to produce

26

an evolving landscape of sealable material. For example, as this litigation progresses, it will

27

become clearer which of Waymo’s 121 asserted trade secrets — which, until now, have all been

28

kept under seal — actually qualify as such. Those that do not should ultimately be unsealed.

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 435 Filed 05/15/17 Page 2 of 2

1

As another example, certain material initially allowed to be filed under seal in connection with

2

Waymo’s motion for provisional relief — e.g., to prevent disclosure of trade secrets or

3

competitive harm to a party — should no longer remain under seal because one or both sides

4

have since voluntarily disclosed such material to the public, either in written submissions or

5

during oral argument.

6

Now that the dust has settled on Waymo’s motion for provisional relief, both sides are

7

ordered to MEET AND CONFER and to file revised public versions of documents previously filed

8

under seal as necessary to eliminate all unnecessary redactions. Redactions pertaining to

9

Waymo’s asserted trade secrets may be kept in place for the time being pending final resolution
of Waymo’s claims, either on appeal or in the normal course of litigation. The revised

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

documents must be filed in an organized manner, such that the public can readily identify and

12

reference each document, by JUNE 12 AT NOON, failing which the Court may consider imposing

13

a moratorium on hearing any further motions until all unnecessary redactions in the record have

14

been cured.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: May 15, 2017.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2