Filed: Nov. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 20, 2018
Summary: ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . In our circuit, courts start with a "strong presumption in favor of access" when deciding whether to seal records. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). To seal records in connection with a "dispositive" motion or a motion that "more than tangentially relate[s] to the merits of a case," "compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that ou
Summary: ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . In our circuit, courts start with a "strong presumption in favor of access" when deciding whether to seal records. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). To seal records in connection with a "dispositive" motion or a motion that "more than tangentially relate[s] to the merits of a case," "compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that out..
More
ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.
In our circuit, courts start with a "strong presumption in favor of access" when deciding whether to seal records. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). To seal records in connection with a "dispositive" motion or a motion that "more than tangentially relate[s] to the merits of a case," "compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure" are required. See id. at 1178-79 (quotations and citations omitted); see also Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). A particularized showing of "good cause" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), however, suffices to warrant sealing in connection with a non-dispositive motion. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80.
Civil Local Rule 79-5 requires that administrative motions to file under seal be accompanied by "[a] declaration establishing that the document sought to be filed under seal, or portions thereof, are sealable." For example, "[t]he publication of materials that could result in infringement upon trade secrets has long been considered a factor that would overcome [the] strong presumption" in favor of access and provide compelling reasons for sealing. Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011). Compelling reasons may also warrant sealing for "sources of business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing," especially where the public has "minimal interest" in the information because it "is not necessary to the public's understanding of the case." See Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978); Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1221-22 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (applying the law of our circuit).
In our district, "[r]eference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable." Moreover, administrative motions to file under seal must "be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material." C.L.R. 79-5. Supporting declarations may not rely on vague boilerplate language or nebulous assertions of potential harm but must explain with particularity why any document or portion thereof remains sealable under the applicable legal standard. Requests not narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5 shall be denied.
With these principles in mind, this order GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the parties' administrative motions as stated in the tables below. To the extent their motions are denied, each movant shall file revised versions of their documents consistent with this order on the public docket by DECEMBER 6 at NOON.
LIST OF ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS.
DKT. NO. DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED RULING
66-4 Declaration of Andrew J. Dressel The supporting declaration fails to show
particularized good cause because it
merely concludes in generic terms that
this information was designated as
confidential under a previous protective
order. Moreover, this request has not
been narrowly tailored as required by
Civil Local Rule 79-5 and is
accordingly DENIED.
66-6 Exhibit A The supporting declaration fails to show
particularized good cause because it
merely concludes in generic terms that
this information was designated as
confidential under a previous protective
order. Aside from defining terms, the
document does not disclose data that
might harm Uber's competitive
advantage. Moreover, this request has
not been narrowly tailored as required
by Civil Local Rule 79-5 and is
accordingly DENIED.
66-8 Exhibit B The supporting declaration fails to show
particularized good cause because it
merely concludes in generic terms that
this information was designated as
confidential under a previous protective
order. It is unclear how the disclosure
of this information might harm Uber's
competitive advantage, nor is there any
private driver identification information.
Moreover, this request has not been
narrowly tailored as required by Civil
Local Rule 79-5 and is accordingly
DENIED.
66-10 Exhibit C Since the underlying motion and its
final disposition remain attenuated from
the merits, the public has little interest
in the sealing of this information. The
supporting declaration, however, fails to
show particularized good cause because
it merely concludes in generic terms
that this information was designated as
confidential under a previous protective
order. It is unclear how the disclosure
of the Uber's driver fees (already
publically known) might harm Uber's
competitive advantage. Moreover, this
request has not been narrowly tailored
as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5
and is accordingly DENIED.
70-4 Portions of Uber's Opposition to Good cause warrants sealing of the
Class Certification. portion at page 7:1-17 to prevent the
disclosure of Uber's underlying
analysis. This justification does not,
however, extend to other portions which
describe the facts important to the
overall case. It is unclear how
disclosure of — for example — various
payouts under plaintiff's theory would
harm Uber's competitive advantage.
This request is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART.
70-5 Entirety of Jason Dowlatabadi The supporting declaration avers that
declaration. disclosure of some information in this
declaration could allow competitors to
imitate or disrupt Uber's business
arrangements. While that risk seems
minimal with respect to the particular
information contained therein, the
public's interest in said information also
remains minimal. Under these
circumstances, sufficient good cause
has been shown to justify sealing. This
request is GRANTED.
70-6 Entirety of exhibit A to Declaration The supporting declaration fails to show
of Jason Dowlatabadi. particularized good cause because it
merely concludes in generic terms that
this information was designated as
confidential under a previous protective
order. Aside from defining terms, the
document does not disclose data that
might harm Uber's competitive
advantage. Moreover, this request has
not been narrowly tailored as required
by Civil Local Rule 79-5 and is
accordingly DENIED.
70-7 Entirety of exhibit F to Declaration The supporting declaration fails to show
of Randall W. Edwards. particularized good cause as it merely
states that the document might be sealed
"out of an abundance of caution" in
case the plaintiff wishes to seek sealing.
In light of the preference for more
access to information and because this
request has not been narrowly tailored
as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5,
this request is DENIED.
70-8 Entirety of exhibit G to Declaration Good cause warrants the sealing of the
of Randall W. Edwards. entire document to prevent disclosure of
private employee contact information
and confidential internal information.
This request is GRANTED.
70-9 Entirety of exhibit H to Declaration Good cause warrants the sealing of the
of Randall W. Edwards. entire document to prevent disclosure of
private employee contact information
and confidential internal information.
This request is GRANTED.
70-10 Entirety of exhibit I to Declaration The supporting declaration fails to show
of Randall W. Edwards. particularized good cause as it merely
states that the document might be sealed
"out of an abundance of caution" in
case the plaintiff wishes to seek sealing.
In light of the preference for more
access to information and because this
request has not been narrowly tailored
as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5,
this request is DENIED.
70-11 Entirety of exhibit K to Declaration The supporting declaration fails to show
of Randall W. Edwards. particularized good cause to seal this
document. The information contained
in exhibit K merely aggregates total
payment and does not disclose
proprietary variables. This request is
DENIED.
70-13 Portions of exhibit L to Good cause warrants sealing of page 9
Declaration of Randall W. Edwards. FN 28 to prevent the disclosure of
Uber's underlying analysis. This
justification does not, however, extend
to other portions of this exhibit which
merely describe the facts important to
the overall case. It is unclear how
disclosure of vague statements that
certain percentages of drivers would be
better or worse off under competing
interpretations of the agreement would
harm Uber's competitive advantage.
This request is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART.
72-4 Portions of reply in further support Reference to a stipulation or protective
of motion for class certification and order that allows a party to designate
appointment of class counsel. certain documents as confidential is not
sufficient to establish that a document,
or portions thereof, are sealable. The
supporting declaration fails to show
particularized good cause to seal this
document as it merely states that the
information is designated as
confidential. This request is DENIED.
72-8 Entirety of exhibit 2, Dulberg Reference to a stipulation or protective
deposition dated January 4, 2018. order that allows a party to designate
certain documents as confidential is not
sufficient to establish that a document,
or portions thereof, are sealable. The
supporting declaration fails to show
particularized good cause to seal this
document as it merely states that the
information is designated as
confidential. Moreover, this request has
not been narrowly tailored as required
by Civil Local Rule 79-5 and is
accordingly DENIED.
72-12 Entirety of declaration of Good cause warrants sealing of
Andrew J. Dressel. paragraphs six and seven to prevent the
disclosure of Uber's underlying
analysis. This justification does not,
however, extend to other portions of the
declaration as they pertain to data in
general that would not harm Uber's
competitive advantage. This request is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART.
72-13 Entirety of exhibit A to declaration Reference to a stipulation or protective
of Andrew J. Dressel. order that allows a party to designate
certain documents as confidential is not
sufficient to establish that a document,
or portions thereof, are sealable. The
supporting declaration fails to show
particularized good cause to seal this
document as it merely states that the
information is designated as
confidential. It is unclear how ride data,
without any disclosure of the analysis
behind it, would harm Uber's
competitive advantage. Moreover, this
request has not been narrowly tailored
as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5
and is accordingly DENIED.
106-4 Portions of exhibit 3 to declaration Good cause warrants the sealing of the
of Paul B. Maslo. portions identified to prevent disclosure
of Uber's underlying calculations. This
request is GRANTED.
106-6 Portions of exhibit 4 to declaration Good cause warrants the sealing of the
of Paul B. Maslo. portions identified to prevent disclosure
of Uber's underlying calculations. This
request is GRANTED.
106-8 Portions of exhibit 5 to declaration Good cause warrants sealing of page 4
Paul B. Maslo. FN 1 to prevent the disclosure of Uber's
underlying analysis. This justification
does not, however, extend to other
portions of the declaration. This request
is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
