Irving Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund v. Uber Technologies et al

Filing 173

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL RE Docket Nos. 134 , 140 , 149 and 159 . (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/30/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

IRVING FIREMEN'S RELIEF &
RETIREMENT FUND,
Plaintiff,

9
v.

ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 134, 140, 149, 159

10
11

Case No. 17-cv-05558-HSG

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
Pending before the Court are administrative motions to seal portions of several documents

13
14

filed by Defendant Uber Technologies (“Uber”) and Plaintiff Irving Firemen’s Relief and

15

Retirement Fund (“Irving”). Dkt. Nos. 134, 140, 149, 159. Having carefully considered the

16

pending motions and supporting declarations, the Court GRANTS the parties’ motions.

17
18

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
For motions to seal that comply with the local rules, courts generally apply a “compelling

19

reasons” standard. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–78 (9th Cir. 2010). “This

20

standard derives from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents,

21

including judicial records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu,

22

447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “Unless a particular court record is one traditionally kept

23

secret, a strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178

24

(quotation marks and citation omitted). To overcome this strong presumption, the moving party

25

must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the

26

general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in

27

understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1178–79 (citations, quotation marks, and alterations

28

omitted). “In general, compelling reasons sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure

1

and justify sealing court records exist when such court files might have become a vehicle for

2

improper purposes, such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal,

3

circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quotation marks and citation

4

omitted). The Court must:

5

balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks
to keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these
interests, if the Court decides to seal certain judicial records, it must
base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual
basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.

6
7
8

Id. (citations, brackets, and quotation marks omitted).
Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. The party seeking

9

to file under seal must submit “a request that establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . . The

12

request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material . . . .” Civil L.R. 79-

13

5(b). Courts have found that “confidential business information” in the form of “license

14

agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies”

15

satisfies the “compelling reasons” standard. See In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17-cv-0108-GPC-

16

MDD, 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) (observing that sealing such information

17

“prevent[ed] competitors from gaining insight into the parties’ business model and strategy”);

18

Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc., No. 13-cv-03345-BLF (JSC), 2015 WL 3988132, at *5 (N.D. Cal.

19

June 30, 2015).

20

Finally, records attached to motions that are only “tangentially related to the merits of a

21

case” are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp.,

22

LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, parties moving to seal such records need

23

only meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). Id. at 1097. The “good cause” standard

24

requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information

25

is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th

26

Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

27

//

28

//
2

1

II.

DISCUSSION

2

All portions sought to be sealed pertain to Irving’s second amended complaint, Uber’s

3

motion to dismiss the operative complaint, and related briefing. Dkt. Nos. 134, 140, 149, 159.

4

Because these documents do not qualify as nondispositive motions, the Court applies the

5

“compelling reasons” standard.

6

The current sealing requests are materially identical to prior sealing requests, which this

7

Court granted. See Dkt. No. 128. In all instances, the excerpts sought to be sealed contain

8

information disseminated only to certain investors with access to the “non-public offering of

9

limited partnership interests . . . pursuant to exemptions from the requirements for public offerings
under the Securities Act of 1933 and similar exemptions under the laws of other jurisdictions.”

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Compare Dkt. No. 67 ¶ 7, with Dkt. No. 138 ¶ 7. And as the Court previously explained, the

12

relevant designating entities have “provided a compelling interest in sealing portions of these

13

documents . . . which contain confidential business information relating to New Riders and

14

Morgan Stanley’s confidential partnership agreements.” Dkt. No. 128 at 3 (citing Apple Inc. v.

15

Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 6115623 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012);

16

Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc., No. 13-cv-03345-BLF (JSC), 2015 WL 3988132, at *5 (N.D. Cal.

17

June 30, 2015) (observing that courts “regularly find that litigants may file under seal contracts

18

with third parties that contain proprietary and confidential business information”); In re

19

Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17-CV-0108-GPC-MDD, 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8,

20

2017) (finding that “license agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing

21

negotiations, and business strategies” containing “confidential business information” satisfied the

22

“compelling reasons” standard in part because sealing that information “prevent[ed] competitors

23

from gaining insight into the parties’ business model and strategy”)). So too here. See Dkt. Nos.

24

136, 137, 138, 146, 153, 162. And the Court sees no reason why it should here find that

25

information it previously deemed sealable no longer meets the “compelling reasons” standard.

26

Nor has any party opposed the pending sealing requests on new grounds. Cf. Dkt. Nos. 38, 69, 93,

27

107 (Irving’s oppositions to prior sealing requests).

28

The Court accordingly finds that the parties have met the standard to warrant sealing
3

1

relevant portions of Irving’s operative complaint, Uber’s motion to dismiss, and related briefings.

2

III.

3

CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the pending administrative sealing motions. Dkt. Nos. 134, 140, 149,

4

159. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(1), documents filed under seal as to which the

5

administrative motions are granted will remain under seal. The public will have access only to the

6

redacted versions accompanying the administrative motions.

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 7/30/2019
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

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
28
4