WeRide Corp. et al v. Huang et al

Filing 304

ORDER Denying Without Prejudice 184 186 189 199 258 303 Administrative Motions to File Under Seal; Denying 209 218 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; Granting in Part and Denying in Part 216 217 Administrative Motions to File Under Seal Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 10/7/2019.(ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2019)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

SAN JOSE DIVISION

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

WERIDE CORP., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 5:18-cv-07233-EJD
ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL

v.
KUN HUANG, et al.,
Defendants.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 184, 186, 189, 199, 209, 216,
217, 218, 258, 303

The parties have filed administrative motions to file under seal in connection with

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

WeRide’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, the Second Amended Complaint,

12

Defendant Huang’s Answer, and the Motion to Modify the Preliminary Injunction. Having

13

considered the parties’ papers, the materials sought to be sealed and the law, the court now

14

addresses these motions.

15

U.S. courts recognize that the public has “a general right to inspect and copy public records

16

and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Whitewater W. Indus., Ltd. v. Pac.

17

Surf Designs, Inc., 2019 WL 1590470, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2019) (quoting Nixon v. Warner

18

Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). “When considering a sealing request, ‘a strong

19

presumption in favor of access is the starting point.’” Space Data Corp. v. Alphabet Inc., 2019

20

WL 2305278, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 30, 2019) (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447

21

F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)).

22

This right is not absolute though. Whitewater W. Indus., 2019 WL 1590470, at *1 (quoting

23

Nixon, 434 U.S. at 598). In order to seal judicial records that are “more than tangentially related to

24
25
26
27
28

the underlying cause of action,” the moving party must show “compelling reasons” that outweigh
the presumption in favor of disclosure. Space Data, 2019 WL 2305278, at *1 (citing Ctr. for Auto
Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016)). Courts applying the compelling
reasons standard have upheld the sealing of trade secrets, marketing strategies, product
Case No.: 5:18-cv-07233-EJD
ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
1

1

development plans, detailed product-specific financial information, customer information, internal

2

reports and other such materials that could harm a party’s competitive standing. See, e.g., In re

3

Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008); Opperman v. Path, Inc., 2017 WL

4

1036652, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2017); Lucas v. Breg, Inc., 2016 WL 5464549, at *1 (S.D. Cal.

5

Sept. 28, 2016); Rodman v. Safeway Inc., 2015 WL 13673842 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2015).

6

To meet the compelling reasons standard, the moving party must provide “specific factual

7

findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.”

8

Opperman, 2017 WL 1036652, at *1. “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific

9

examples of articulated reasoning” will not carry the compelling standards burden. Space Data,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

2019 WL 2305278, at *1 (quoting Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th
Cir. 1992)). “There fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment,
incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its
records.” Lucas, 2016 WL 5464549, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2016) (quoting Kamakana, 447
F.3d at 1179). Mere designation of a document as confidential under a protective order is not
sufficient to establish that said document, or portions thereof, are sealable. Civil L.R. 795(d)(1)(A).
The court finds that the compelling reasons standard applies to all of the instant motions to
file under seal because their underlying subject matters are “more than tangentially” related to the
underlying cause of action. Space Data, 2019 WL 2305278, at *1; see also Ctr. for Auto Safety,
809 F.3d 1101.
I.

Docket No. 209

WeRide’s Second Amended Complaint contains material designated as Confidential or

22

Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only by ZZX, AllRide, and Huang. ZZX and AllRide

23

filed a declaration in support of sealing portions of the designated material, but Huang did not.

24

Civil L.R. 79-5(e). The court finds that no material in the Second Amended Complaint warrants

25

sealing. The designating parties proposed sealing certain lines of paragraphs 128 and 129, but

26

those paragraphs concern the relationship between Huang, ZZX, and ZKA, which goes to the

27

allegations underlying the litigation. Accordingly, the Motion to File Under Seal Portions of the
Case No.: 5:18-cv-07233-EJD
ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
2

28

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
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

Second Amended Complaint is denied in its entirety.
II.

Docket No. 216

WeRide’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint contains material
designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only by ZZX, AllRide, and
Huang. ZZX and AllRide filed a declaration in support of sealing portions of the designated
material, but Huang did not. Civil L.R. 79-5(e). ZZX and AllRide only seek to seal portions of
Exhibit E and Exhibit I of the LaFond Declaration. The court denies the motion as to Exhibit E
because that material goes to the relationship between ZZX and AllRide, which concerns the
underlying allegations of the lawsuit. However, the court grants the motion as to Exhibit I page
32, lines 18 and 22 because ZZX and AllRide have shown compelling reasons for sealing. The
motion is otherwise denied.
III.

Docket No. 217

WeRide’s Motion to Modify the Preliminary Injunction contains material designated as
Confidential or Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only by ZZX, AllRide, Huang and Wang.
ZZX, AllRide, and Wang filed declarations in support of sealing portions of the designated
material, but Huang did not. Civil L.R. 79-5(e). The court rules as follows:
Portions Sought to Be Filed
Document
Result
Under Seal
WeRide’s Motion to
Portions Highlighted in Yellow
Denied. No designating party
Modify the Preliminary
at 1:2-6
supports sealing this material.
Injunction
WeRide’s Motion to
Modify the Preliminary
Injunction

Portions Highlighted in Yellow
at 1:26-2:3

Denied. No designating party
supports sealing this material.

WeRide’s Motion to
Modify the Preliminary
Injunction

Portions Highlighted in Blue at
2:6-9

Denied. This material goes to the
allegations underlying the lawsuit
and the designating parties have
not shown a compelling interest
that outweighs the presumption in
favor of disclosure.

26
27
28

Case No.: 5:18-cv-07233-EJD
ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
3

Portions Sought to Be Filed
Under Seal
Portions Highlighted in Yellow
at 2:20-23

Denied. No designating party
supports sealing this material.

WeRide’s Motion to
Modify the Preliminary
Injunction

Portions Highlighted in Yellow
at 3:1-2

Denied. No designating party
supports sealing this material.

WeRide’s Motion to
Modify the Preliminary
Injunction

Portions Highlighted in Yellow
at 3:3

Denied. No designating party
supports sealing this material.

WeRide’s Motion to
Modify the Preliminary
Injunction

Portions Highlighted in Blue at
5:5-14

Denied. This material goes to the
allegations underlying the lawsuit
and the designating parties have
not shown a compelling interest
that outweighs the presumption in
favor of disclosure.

WeRide’s Motion to
Modify the Preliminary
Injunction

Portions Highlighted in Blue at
5 n. 2

Denied. This material goes to the
allegations underlying the lawsuit
and the designating parties have
not shown a compelling interest
that outweighs the presumption in
favor of disclosure.

WeRide’s Motion to
Modify the Preliminary
Injunction

Portions Highlighted in Yellow
at 5:16-6:2

Granted as to 5:21-22 and 6:1;
otherwise denied.

WeRide’s Motion to
Modify the Preliminary
Injunction

Portions Highlighted in Yellow
at 6:3-7:14

Granted as to 6: 5-6; otherwise
denied.

WeRide’s Motion to
Modify the Preliminary
Injunction

Portions Highlighted in Blue at
7:14-17

Denied. This material goes to the
allegations underlying the lawsuit
and the designating parties have
not shown a compelling interest
that outweighs the presumption in
favor of disclosure.

1

Document

2

WeRide’s Motion to
Modify the Preliminary
Injunction

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Result

25
26
27
28

Case No.: 5:18-cv-07233-EJD
ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
4

1

Document

2

WeRide’s Motion to
Modify the Preliminary
Injunction

3

Portions Sought to Be Filed
Under Seal
Portions Highlighted in Blue at
7:25-26

4
5
6
7
8
9

Portions Highlighted in Yellow
at 8:13

Denied. No designating party
supports sealing this material.

WeRide’s Motion to
Modify the Preliminary
Injunction

Portions Highlighted in Blue at
8 n. 7

Denied. This material goes to the
allegations underlying the lawsuit
and the designating parties have
not shown a compelling interest
that outweighs the presumption in
favor of disclosure.

WeRide’s Motion to
Modify the Preliminary
Injunction

Portions Highlighted in Yellow
at 9:5-18

Denied. No designating party
supports sealing this material.

WeRide’s Motion to
Modify the Preliminary
Injunction

Portions Highlighted in Yellow
at 9:25-10:24

Denied. No designating party
supports sealing this material.

WeRide’s Motion to
Modify the Preliminary
Injunction

Portions Highlighted in Yellow
at 11:1-8

Denied. This material goes to the
allegations underlying the lawsuit
and the designating parties have
not shown a compelling interest
that outweighs the presumption in
favor of disclosure.

WeRide’s Motion to
Modify the Preliminary
Injunction

Portions Highlighted in Yellow
at 11:9-17

Denied. This material goes to the
allegations underlying the lawsuit
and the designating parties have
not shown a compelling interest
that outweighs the presumption in
favor of disclosure.

WeRide’s Motion to
Modify the Preliminary
Injunction

Portions Highlighted in Yellow
at 12:15-20

Denied. No designating party
supports sealing this material.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Denied. This material goes to the
allegations underlying the lawsuit
and the designating parties have
not shown a compelling interest
that outweighs the presumption in
favor of disclosure.

WeRide’s Motion to
Modify the Preliminary
Injunction

10

12

Result

27
28

Case No.: 5:18-cv-07233-EJD
ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
5

Portions Sought to Be Filed
Under Seal
Portions Highlighted in Yellow
at 13:3-24

Denied. No designating party
supports sealing this material.

WeRide’s Motion to
Modify the Preliminary
Injunction

Portions Highlighted in Yellow
at 14:9-18

Denied. No designating party
supports sealing this material.

WeRide’s Motion to
Modify the Preliminary
Injunction

Portions Highlighted in Yellow
at 15:2-3 & n. 9

Denied. This material goes to the
allegations underlying the lawsuit
and the designating parties have
not shown a compelling interest
that outweighs the presumption in
favor of disclosure.

WeRide’s Motion to
Modify the Preliminary
Injunction

Portions Highlighted in Yellow
at 15:9-10

Denied. No designating party
supports sealing this material.

WeRide’s Motion to
Modify the Preliminary
Injunction

Portions Highlighted in Yellow
at 17:7-14

Denied. No designating party
supports sealing this material.

WeRide’s Motion to
Modify the Preliminary
Injunction

Portions Highlighted in Blue at
17:23

Denied. This material goes to the
allegations underlying the lawsuit
and the designating parties have
not shown a compelling interest
that outweighs the presumption in
favor of disclosure.

WeRide’s Motion to
Modify the Preliminary
Injunction

Portions Highlighted in Yellow
at 18:1-3

Denied. No designating party
supports sealing this material.

WeRide’s Motion to
Modify the Preliminary
Injunction

Portions Highlighted in Yellow
at 20:5-7

Denied. No designating party
supports sealing this material.

WeRide’s Motion to
Modify the Preliminary
Injunction

Portions Highlighted in Yellow
at 20:24-21:2

Denied. No designating party
supports sealing this material.

WeRide’s Motion to
Modify the Preliminary
Injunction

Portions Highlighted in Yellow
at 21:14-23:6

Granted as to page 22: 2;
otherwise denied.

1

Document

2

WeRide’s Motion to
Modify the Preliminary
Injunction

3
4
5
6
7
8
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
28

Result

Case No.: 5:18-cv-07233-EJD
ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
6

Portions Sought to Be Filed
Under Seal
Portions Highlighted in Yellow
at 23:24

Denied. No designating party
supports sealing this material.

WeRide’s Motion to
Modify the Preliminary
Injunction

Portions Highlighted in Yellow
at 25:15-16

Denied. No designating party
supports sealing this material.

WeRide’s Motion to
Modify the Preliminary
Injunction

Portions Highlighted in Yellow
in Appendix A

Denied. This material goes to the
allegations underlying the lawsuit
and the designating parties have
not shown a compelling interest
that outweighs the presumption in
favor of disclosure.

WeRide’s Motion to
Modify the Preliminary
Injunction

Portions Highlighted in Blue in
Appendix A

Denied. This material goes to the
allegations underlying the lawsuit
and the designating parties have
not shown a compelling interest
that outweighs the presumption in
favor of disclosure.

Declaration of Dr.
Matthew R. Walter

Portions Highlighted in Yellow

Granted as to the limitations
proposed by ZZX and AllRide in
§ 14 of Dkt. No. 172.

17

Declaration of Ryan S.
Landes

Portions Highlighted in Yellow

Granted as to page 5:16-17, 19-22,
otherwise denied.

18

Exhibit 4 to Landes

The entire document

Granted as to the limitations
proposed by ZZX and AllRide in
§ 4 of Dkt. No. 172.

Exhibit 5 to Landes

The entire document

Denied. No designating party
supports sealing this material.

Exhibit 6 to Landes

The entire document

Granted as to the limitations
proposed by ZZX and AllRide in
§ 5 of Dkt. No. 172.

Exhibit 7 to Landes

The entire document

Denied. No designating party
supports sealing this material.

Exhibit 8 to Landes

The entire document

Denied. No designating party
supports sealing this material.

1

Document

2

WeRide’s Motion to
Modify the Preliminary
Injunction

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Result

Case No.: 5:18-cv-07233-EJD
ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
7

1
2

Exhibit 9 to Landes

Portions Sought to Be Filed
Under Seal
The entire document

Exhibit 10 to Landes

The entire document

Denied. No designating party
supports sealing this material.

Exhibit 11 to Landes

The entire document

Granted as to the limitations
proposed by ZZX and AllRide in
§ 7 of Dkt. No. 172.

Exhibit 12 to Landes

The entire document

Denied. No designating party
supports sealing this material.

Exhibit 13 to Landes

The entire document

Denied. This material goes to the
allegations underlying the lawsuit
and the designating parties have
not shown a compelling interest
that outweighs the presumption in
favor of disclosure.

Exhibit 14 to Landes

The entire document

Denied. No designating party
supports sealing this material.

Exhibit 15 to Landes

The entire document

Denied. No designating party
supports sealing this material.

Exhibit 16 to Landes

The entire document

Denied. No designating party
supports sealing this material.

Exhibit 17 to Landes

The entire document

Denied. No designating party
supports sealing this material.

Exhibit 18 to Landes

The entire document

Denied. No designating party
supports sealing this material.

Exhibit 19 to Landes

The entire document

Denied. No designating party
supports sealing this material.

Exhibit 20 to Landes

The entire document

Denied. No designating party
supports sealing this material.

Document

3
4
5
6
7
8
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

Result
Denied. This material goes to the
allegations underlying the lawsuit
and the designating parties have
not shown a compelling interest
that outweighs the presumption in
favor of disclosure.

27
28

Case No.: 5:18-cv-07233-EJD
ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
8

1
2
3
4
5

Exhibit 21 to Landes

Portions Sought to Be Filed
Under Seal
The entire document

Exhibit 22 to Landes

The entire document

Denied. No designating party
supports sealing this material.

Exhibit 23 to Landes

The entire document

Denied. No designating party
supports sealing this material.

Exhibit 24 to Landes

The entire document

Denied. This material goes to the
allegations underlying the lawsuit
and the designating parties have
not shown a compelling interest
that outweighs the presumption in
favor of disclosure.

Exhibit 30 to Landes

The entire document

Denied. No designating party
supports sealing this material.

Exhibit 33 to Landes

The entire document

Denied without prejudice. The
parties are ordered to meet and
confer in good faith so that
WeRide submits only relevant
excerpts of the deposition and the
designating parties propose
narrowly tailored redactions only
of material that meets the
compelling reasons standard. The
parties may file an amended
motion to seal this material within
seven days of the date of this
order.

Document

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Result
Denied. No designating party
supports sealing this material.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No.: 5:18-cv-07233-EJD
ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
9

1
2

Exhibit 34 to Landes

Portions Sought to Be Filed
Under Seal
The entire document

Exhibit 35 to Landes

The entire document

Denied without prejudice. The
parties are ordered to meet and
confer in good faith so that
WeRide submits only relevant
excerpts of the deposition and the
designating parties propose
narrowly tailored redactions only
of material that meets the
compelling reasons standard. The
parties may file an amended
motion to seal this material within
seven days of the date of this
order.

Exhibit 36 to Landes

The entire document

Granted. The designating party
has shown a compelling reason for
sealing this material.

Exhibit 37 to Landes

The entire document

Denied. No designating party
supports sealing this material.

Exhibit 38 to Landes

The entire document

Granted. The designating party
has shown a compelling reason for
sealing this material.

Document

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Result
Denied without prejudice. The
parties are ordered to meet and
confer in good faith so that
WeRide submits only relevant
excerpts of the deposition and the
designating parties propose
narrowly tailored redactions only
of material that meets the
compelling reasons standard. The
parties may file an amended
motion to seal this material within
seven days of the date of this
order.

24
25
26
27
28

Case No.: 5:18-cv-07233-EJD
ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
10

1
2

Exhibit 39 to Landes

Portions Sought to Be Filed
Under Seal
The entire document

Exhibit 40 to Landes

The entire document

Denied. This material goes to the
allegations underlying the lawsuit
and the designating parties have
not shown a compelling interest
that outweighs the presumption in
favor of disclosure.

Exhibit 41 to Landes

The entire document

Denied. This material goes to the
allegations underlying the lawsuit
and the designating parties have
not shown a compelling interest
that outweighs the presumption in
favor of disclosure.

Exhibit 42 to Landes

The entire document

Denied. This material goes to the
allegations underlying the lawsuit
and the designating parties have
not shown a compelling interest
that outweighs the presumption in
favor of disclosure.

Exhibit 53 to Landes

The entire document

Granted as to the limitations
proposed by ZZX and AllRide in
§ 13 of Dkt. No. 172.

Exhibit 56 to Landes

The entire document

Denied. No designating party
supports sealing this material.

Exhibit 59 to Landes

The entire document

Denied. No designating party
supports sealing this material.

Document

3
4
5
6
7
8
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

IV.

Result
Denied. This material goes to the
allegations underlying the lawsuit
and the designating parties have
not shown a compelling interest
that outweighs the presumption in
favor of disclosure.

Docket No. 218

WeRide’s Motion to Shorten Time contains material designated as Confidential or Highly
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only by ZZX and AllRide. However, the materials at issue go to
the allegations underlying the lawsuit and the designating parties have not shown a compelling

27
28

Case No.: 5:18-cv-07233-EJD
ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
11

1
2

interest that outweighs the presumption in favor of disclosure. The motion is denied.
V.

Docket Nos. 184, 186, 189, 199, 258, and 303

3

Docket Nos. 184, 186, 189, 199, 258, and 303 all fail to comply with Civil Local Rule 5-

4

1(g), which requires the moving party to email a Microsoft word version of its proposed order to

5

[e-mail], and/or with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(B), which requires the

6

proposed order to “list[] in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be

7

sealed.” The court therefore denies these motions without prejudice. The parties may file

8

compliant administrative motion to file under seal within seven days of this order.

9

The newly-filed motions shall incorporate the court’s previous rulings on administrative
motions to file under seal, so that they do not seek to seal material for which the court has already

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

denied a motion to file under seal. If the parties seek to seal material for which the court has

12

already granted an administrative motion to file under seal, the newly-filed motion shall reference

13

the docket number and page number of the court’s prior sealing order. The court further orders

14

that all materials filed in connection with an administrative motion to file under seal must cite the

15

material sought to be sealed by the specific page and line numbers in the underlying document;

16

general references to highlighted material will not suffice.

17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 7, 2019
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No.: 5:18-cv-07233-EJD
ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
12