Lowell v. Lyft, Inc.

Filing 319

ORDER granting 316 Letter Motion to Seal. Application granted. The redacted document filed on the public docket (Doc. 317) will remain the publicly-filed version of the parties' joint proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and t he unredacted version (Doc. 318) will remain under seal. A telephone conference has been scheduled for November 7, 2022 at 3:00 p.m. to discuss the parties' pretrial submissions. At the time of the scheduled conference, all parties shall call the following number: [phone]; access code 3456831. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Philip M. Halpern on 11/4/2022) (kv)

Case 7-17-cv-06251-PMH-AEK

Document 316

Filed in NYSD on 11/03/2022

Page 1 of 5

FOLGER LEVIN

LLP

Attorneys at Law

199 Fremont Street, 20th Floor
San Francisco, California 94105
PHONE [phone]
WEBSITE folgerlevin.com

Application granted. The redacted document filed on the public
docket (Doc. 317) will remain the publicly-filed version of the
parties' joint proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
the unredacted version (Doc. 318) will remain under seal.

November 3, 2022
VIA ECF

A telephone conference has been scheduled for November 7,
2022 at 3:00 p.m. to discuss the parties' pretrial submissions. At
the time of the scheduled conference, all parties shall call the
following number: [phone]; access code 3456831.

Hon. Philip M. Halpern
SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
_______________________
The Hon. Charles L. Brieant Jr.
Philip M. Halpern
Federal Building and United States Courthouse
United States District Judge
300 Quarropas St.
White Plains, NY 10601-4150
Dated: White Plains, New York
Re:

November 4, 2022

Lowell, et al. v. Lyft, Inc.
Case No. 7:17-cv-06251-PMH-AEK (S.D.N.Y.)

Dear Judge Halpern,
We submit this letter on behalf of Defendant Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”) pursuant to Court’s
Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions § 6 and Paragraph 15 of the May 24, 2019
Protective Order (the “Protective Order”), see ECF No. 67, to request permission for
Plaintiffs to publicly file a redacted version of the Parties’ Joint Proposed Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law (“Joint Proposed Findings”). Following this letter, Plaintiffs will file
under seal an unredacted, marked version of the Joint Proposed Findings.
Lyft submits this request because the above-referenced document quotes internal
ride data that Lyft properly designated Highly Confidential pursuant to Paragraphs 7-8 of
the Protective Order, due to the confidential and commercially sensitive nature of the
material contained therein.

Case 7-17-cv-06251-PMH-AEK

Document 316

Filed in NYSD on 11/03/2022

Page 2 of 5

Hon. Philip M. Halpern
November 3, 2022
Page 2
Based on the language of the Protective Order and the nature of the documents, Lyft
requests that the materials it has designated as Highly Confidential be filed under seal. This
request is very narrowly tailored. In the 520 proposed findings that Plaintiffs transmitted,
Lyft has designated individual figures contained in just 40. Lyft has not designated any
materials in its own 42 proposed findings. Thus, this request is carefully limited to cover
only specific internal ride data that Lyft has properly designated as Highly Confidential.
The sealing of these materials is warranted under the applicable law. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(c)(1)(H). The presumption in favor of public access applies only to “judicial”
documents or records. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir.
2006). “In determining whether a document is a judicial record, the Court must evaluate
the ‘relevance of the document’s specific contents to the nature of the proceeding’ and the
degree to which ‘access to the [document] would materially assist the public in
understanding the issues before the . . . court, and in evaluating the fairness and integrity of
the court’s proceedings.’” Winfield v. N.Y.C., No. 15-CV-05236 (LTS) (KHP), 2017 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 103612, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. July 5, 2017) (alterations in original) (quoting Newsday LLC
v. Cty. of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156, 166-67 (2d Cir. 2013)). “[T]he mere filing of a paper or
document with the court is insufficient to render that paper a judicial document subject to
the right of public access.” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119 (citation omitted).
Further, a determination that a document is a judicial record does not end the
inquiry. Where exhibits include “highly sensitive documents that discuss proprietary . . .
assumptions, processes, methodologies, and judgments,” that is “sufficient to keep the

Case 7-17-cv-06251-PMH-AEK

Document 316

Filed in NYSD on 11/03/2022

Page 3 of 5

Hon. Philip M. Halpern
November 3, 2022
Page 3
exhibits and any references to the exhibits under seal.” Brach Family Found., Inc. v. AXA
Equitable Life Ins. Co., No. 16-CV-740 (JMF), 2017 WL 5151357, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 3,
2017); see also, e.g., Awestruck Mktg. Grp., LLC v. Black Ops Prods., LLC, No. 16-CV-3639
(RJS), 2016 WL 8814349, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 20, 2016) (maintaining under seal a client list
“contain[ing] sensitive and proprietary information that is not generally publicly available
and that, if revealed, could cause significant competitive harm”).
The confidential materials Lyft seeks to protect in the Joint Proposed Findings
constitute internal ride data for Lyft’s “Standard mode,” and does not concern Lyft’s
wheelchair-accessible vehicle service (called “Access mode”). As the Court is aware, the
subject matter of Plaintiffs’ claims is Access mode, not Standard mode. The specific figures
Lyft seeks to protect are irrelevant to the matters to be decided by the Court, as no expert
will testify that Standard mode service can be replicated in Access mode. The figures have
little, if any, bearing on the nature of this proceeding and will not assist the public in
understanding the issues before the court. See Newsday, 730 F.3d at 166-67; Winfield, 2017
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103612, at *11. Thus, these specific figures do not qualify as judicial
records.
Moreover, the figures themselves are highly confidential, representing Lyft’s recent
internal ride data, extending through January 2021, which maintain competitive value.
“[T]he common-law right of inspection has bowed before the power of a court to insure
that its records are not . . . [used] as sources of business information that might harm a
litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). Lyft

Case 7-17-cv-06251-PMH-AEK

Document 316

Filed in NYSD on 11/03/2022

Page 4 of 5

Hon. Philip M. Halpern
November 3, 2022
Page 4
operates in a highly competitive industry, where the release of data of this nature can harm
Lyft’s competitive standing. See e.g., Skyline Steel, LLC v. PilePro, LLC, 101 F. Supp. 3d 394,
412-13 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (sealing exhibits where they consisted “largely of ‘highly
confidential sales information, including pricing information,’ which is not available to the
public, and emails revealing confidential negotiations between Skyline and one of its
customers”).
We note that no similar material was disclosed publicly in the matter of ILRC v. Lyft,
including during the trial. Lyft has consistently protected this data, and data of this nature,
from public disclosure. Lyft’s internal ride data maintains competitive value and merits
protection.
For the foregoing reasons, Lyft respectfully requests that the Court grant permission
to file under seal portions of the Joint Proposed Findings.

Case 7-17-cv-06251-PMH-AEK

Document 316

Filed in NYSD on 11/03/2022

Page 5 of 5

Hon. Philip M. Halpern
November 3, 2022
Page 5
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Jiyun Cameron Lee
Jiyun Cameron Lee
Marie Jonas
FOLGER LEVIN LLP
199 Fremont Street, 20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.625.1091
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant Lyft, Inc.
cc:

All Counsel (via ECF)

1180778.3