Lowell v. Lyft, Inc.

Filing 417

ORDER granting 413 Letter Motion to Seal. Application granted. The redacted document filed on the public docket (Doc. 415) will remain the publicly-filed version of the parties' joint proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the unredacted version (Doc. 414) will remain under seal. The parties shall submit one courtesy copy of the revised submissions filed on March 4, 2024 to Chambers. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Philip M. Halpern on 3/5/2024) (jca)

Case 7:17-cv-06251-PMH-AEK Document 413 Filed 03/04/24 Page 1 of 4
FOLGER LEVIN

LLP

Attorneys at Law

33 New Montgomery Street, 19th Floor
San Francisco, California 94105
PHONE [phone]
WEBSITE folgerlevin.com

March 4, 2024
VIA ECF

Application granted. The redacted document filed on the
public docket (Doc. 415) will remain the publicly-filed version
of the parties' joint proposed findings of fact and conclusions
of law, and the unredacted version (Doc. 414) will remain
under seal. The parties shall submit one courtesy copy of the
revised submissions filed on March 4, 2024 to Chambers.
SO OR
ORDERED.
RDE
DERED.

Hon. Philip M. Halpern
_______________________
_______
_____
__________
United States District Judge
Philip
ip
M.
Halpern
The Hon. Charles L. Brieant Jr.
ted States District Judge
United
Federal Building and United States Courthouse
300 Quarropas St.
ed: White Plains, New York
Dated:
White Plains, NY 10601-4150
March 5, 2024
Re:

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

Dear Judge Halpern,
endant Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”) pursuant to Court’s
We submit this letter on behalf of Defendant
Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions § 6 and Paragraph 15 of the May 24, 2019
Protective Order (the “Protective Order”), seee ECF No. 67, to request permission to publicly
file a redacted version of the Parties’ Joint Proposed
oposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law (“Joint Proposed Findings”). Following this
his letter, Lyft will file under seal an
unredacted, marked version of the Joint Proposed
posed Findings.
Lyft submits this request because the Joint Proposed Findings references 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 413 Filed 03/04/24 Page 2 of 4

Hon. Philip M. Halpern
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. 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
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

Case 7:17-cv-06251-PMH-AEK Document 413 Filed 03/04/24 Page 3 of 4

Hon. Philip M. Halpern
Page 3
(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
generally constitutes 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
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
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

Case 7:17-cv-06251-PMH-AEK Document 413 Filed 03/04/24 Page 4 of 4

Hon. Philip M. Halpern
Page 4
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.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Jiyun Cameron Lee
Jiyun Cameron Lee
Marie Jonas
FOLGER LEVIN LLP
33 New Montgomery Street, 19th 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)

4856-8539-5370, v. 1