Filed: Aug. 02, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 02, 2019
Summary: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL Re: Dkt. No. 181 SUSAN VAN KEULEN , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiff X One, Inc.'s ("X One") Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ("Motion"). ECF 181. X One seeks to seal certain confidential information that it submitted to the Court in connection with the Parties' June 7, 2019 joint discovery letter dispute regarding X One's motion to compel in camera review of certain em
Summary: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL Re: Dkt. No. 181 SUSAN VAN KEULEN , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiff X One, Inc.'s ("X One") Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ("Motion"). ECF 181. X One seeks to seal certain confidential information that it submitted to the Court in connection with the Parties' June 7, 2019 joint discovery letter dispute regarding X One's motion to compel in camera review of certain ema..
More
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 181
SUSAN VAN KEULEN, Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff X One, Inc.'s ("X One") Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ("Motion"). ECF 181. X One seeks to seal certain confidential information that it submitted to the Court in connection with the Parties' June 7, 2019 joint discovery letter dispute regarding X One's motion to compel in camera review of certain emails identified in Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.'s ("Uber") privilege logs and to compel further responses to X One's Requests for Admission. ECF 184.
Courts recognize a "general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents." Kamakana v. City & Cnty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). A request to seal court records therefore starts with a "strong presumption in favor of access." Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The standard for overcoming the presumption of public access to court records depends on the purpose for which the records are filed with the court. A party seeking to seal court records relating to motions that are "more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action" must demonstrate "compelling reasons" that support secrecy. Ctr. For Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016). For records attached to motions that are "not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of the case," the lower "good cause" standard of Rule 26(c) applies. Id.; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. A party moving to seal court records must also comply with the procedures established by Civil Local Rule 79-5.
Here, the "good cause" standard applies because the information X One seeks to seal was submitted to the Court in connection with a discovery dispute, rather than a motion that concerns the merits of the case. Having considered the Motion, the declarations of Jacob A. Schroeder (ECF 181-1) ("Schroeder Decl.") and Christopher L. Robinson (ECF 239) ("Robinson Decl.") submitted in support thereof, the pleadings on file and the Parties' efforts to narrowly tailor their sealing requests, the Motion is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
X One moves to seal the entirety of Exhibits 1-8 to the Parties' June 7, 2019 joint discovery letter (ECF 184) because they contain information that Uber designated "Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only" under the protective order in this case. ECF 181 at 1; Schroeder Decl. ¶ 3. X One does not maintain a claim of confidentiality over the material contained in Exhibits 1-8. ECF 181 at 1. Uber filed a declaration under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1) and informed the Court that only Exhibits 3, 7 and 8 (ECF 181-5; ECF 181-9; ECF 181-10) contain confidential information. Robinson Decl. ¶ 2. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS X One's motion as to the portions of Exhibits 3, 7 and 8 outlined below. The Court DENIES X One's motion as to the remainder of Exhibits 3, 7 and 8 and the entirety of Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6. X One is to file unredacted versions of Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 on the public docket by August 12, 2019. Uber is to file redacted versions of Exhibits 3 and 8 as outlined below and in the Robinson Decl. on the public docket by August 12, 2019.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following materials should be sealed and that counsel for Uber may file the following materials under seal.
Document Text to be Sealed Basis for Sealing Portion of Document
Page 9, lines 17-211
Page 12, lines 1-2,2 16-27 Exhibit 3 contains Uber's confidential
financial information, including highly
Page 13, lines 1-4, 8-12, confidential revenue, cost, operating
17-21, 22-23, 26-27 profit and margin numbers information.
Robinson Decl. ¶ 3. Disclosure of this
information would provide a competitive
Page 14, lines 4-5 advantage to Uber's competitors and
allow them to tailor their business
Exhibit 3 to Joint Page 15, lines 19-28 strategies based on Uber's confidential
Statement financial and profit information. Id. This
Page 16, lines 25-28 would harm Uber's competitive standing
in the ride-sharing industry. Id.
Page 17, lines 1-7, 10-19 Accordingly, the portions of Exhibit 3
identified in paragraph 6 of the Robinson
Page 18, lines 7-16, 19-28 Decl. may be filed under seal.
Page 19, lines 1, 17-26
Page 20, lines 2-11
Exhibit 7 is a hypothetical legal question
and fact pattern prepared for evaluating
applicants in Uber's hiring process for its
legal department, which shows Uber's
internal policies and procedures.
Robinson Decl. ¶ 7. Disclosure of such
Exhibit 7 to Joint information would reveal confidential
Statement Entire Document information and details about Uber's
deliberative hiring and interview process
and could harm Uber's efforts to vet and
hire employees. Id. at ¶¶ 7-8.
Accordingly, Exhibit 7 may be filed
under seal.
Page 5, lines 16, 19-28
Page 6, lines 2-28
Page 7, lines 2-12, 13, 15-17, Exhibit 8 reveals highly confidential
18, 20-28 information related to Uber's third-party
patent license agreements, including the
Page 8, lines 2-28 identities of the confidential third
parties, the pricing terms and licensing
Page 9, lines 2-11 fees, and the specific intellectual
property assets subject to the licenses.
Page 10, lines 17-18 Robinson Decl. ¶ 10. Disclosure of this
information may impair Uber's
Page 11, lines 4-5 bargaining position in future
negotiations with potential licensors and
Page 12, lines 22-28 cause Uber competitive harm by
revealing the names of Uber's licensors,
Page 13, lines 1-11 the types of assets that Uber has
licensed, the prices that Uber has paid
Exhibit 8 to Joint Page 18, lines 25-27 for those licenses, and other confidential
Statement commercial terms contained in its
license agreements. Id. Further,
Page 19, lines 1-4, 7-10 Exhibit 8 also includes descriptions of
proprietary technology used or
Page 20, lines 6-23 contemplated for use in Uber's products,
and disclosure of this information would
Page 21, lines 16-18, 24-26 confer an unfair advantage on Uber's
competitors by revealing specific
Page 22, lines 2-8, 11-28 technologies that Uber has or will
incorporate in its products. Id.
Page 23, lines 2-28 Accordingly, the portions of Exhibit 8
identified in paragraph 15 of the
Robinson Decl. may be filed under seal.
Page 24, lines 2-3, 5-6, 11,
14-16, 17, 19-28
Page 25, lines 2-28
Page 26, lines 2-10
Page 30, line 5
SO ORDERED.
