Scott Crawford et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 192

ORDER REGARDING SEALING MOTIONS. Signed by Chief Judge Richard Seeborg on 7/12/2021. (rslc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/12/2021)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

SCOTT CRAWFORD,

Case No. 17-cv-02664-RS

Plaintiff,
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

v.

ORDER REGARDING SEALING
MOTIONS

12
13

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

14
15

STEPHAN NAMISNAK and FRANCIS
FALLS,

16

Plaintiffs,

17
18
19

Case No. 17-cv-06124-RS
ORDER REGARDING SEALING
MOTIONS

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

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Ten separate motions to file under seal are pending. (Dkts. 145, 146, 147, 153, 155, 169,
173, 176, 182, 186). They relate to the parties’ upcoming cross-motions for summary judgment
and various motions in limine. In support of their motions, the parties have correctly noted the
general principles reflected in Civil Local Rule 79-5, and the “importance of public access to
documents.” At the same time, Defendants have not explained how the particular documents they
designate are confidential. For example, in Plaintiffs’ first three (related) motions to seal, they
identify portions of their motion for summary judgment and twenty-six related exhibits designated

1

confidential by Defendants. Dkts. 145, 146, 147. In their responsive declaration, Defendants lump

2

together by topic (WAV pilot, Xchange Leasing, Advanced Technology Group) the documents

3

sought to be sealed, but do not identify which documents address which topics. They contend

4

documents related to the WAV pilot are highly confidential and proprietary because they include

5

“current and future plans, market research, cost projections, methods, techniques, and processes”

6

and that Defendants would suffer competitive harm if they were released. Documents related to

7

Xchange Leasing are described only as containing “sensitive non-public information” regarding

8

“private details of Xchange’s prior business.” Documents related to Advanced Technology Group

9

are similarly labeled “sensitive, confidential, and non-public” because they reveal “the number of
vehicles [Advanced Technology Group] owned at one point of [sic] time.” The provided

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

explanations portray these documents as merely routine business records. Defendants must

12

provide more persuasive reasons to hide information, especially when it bears on the merits of

13

dispositive motions, from the public in a civil rights case like this one.

14

Defendants have furthermore not provided a proposed order indicating specifically which

15

documents, or portions thereof, they seek to have sealed. Instead, they indicate Plaintiffs have

16

over-redacted their motion and attach a copy of the motion with their proposed sealing in black,

17

making it is impossible to evaluate what they would seal, and without any mechanism to track

18

what changes have been made. While some of this information may warrant sealing, Defendants

19

have not made nearly the required showing.

20

Most of the other motions suffer from the same problem. Accordingly, within 10 days

21

following the hearing on the cross-motions for summary judgment, the parties shall engage in

22

meet and confer negotiations to attempt to agree on the narrowest possible sealing order, and shall

23

jointly submit such a proposed order, and any supplemental declarations, within 5 days thereafter.

24

The proposed order shall clearly identify any documents, or portions thereof, that the parties agree

25

should be filed under seal, and concisely state the basis for such sealing. To the extent the parties

26

are unable to reach agreement as to the propriety of sealing any particular material, the proposed

27

order should include brackets or other indications sufficient to evaluate the dispute and enter the
ORDER REGARDING SEALING MOTIONS
CASE NO. 17-cv-02664-RS

28
2

1

proposed order by accepting or rejecting the bracketed language. The proposed order should be

2

one document which will dispose of all ten sealing motions identified above.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7
8

Dated: July 12, 2021
______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
Chief United States District Judge

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
ORDER REGARDING SEALING MOTIONS
CASE NO. 17-cv-02664-RS

28
3