X One, Inc. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 16-cv-06050-LHK (SVK). (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20190805865
Visitors: 11
Filed: Aug. 02, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 02, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL Re: Dkt. No. 180 SUSAN VAN KEULEN , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.'s ("Uber") Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ("Motion"). ECF 180. Uber 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 Uber's motion to compel Plaintiff X One, Inc. ("X One") to provide further r
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL Re: Dkt. No. 180 SUSAN VAN KEULEN , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.'s ("Uber") Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ("Motion"). ECF 180. Uber 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 Uber's motion to compel Plaintiff X One, Inc. ("X One") to provide further re..
More
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 180
SUSAN VAN KEULEN, Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.'s ("Uber") Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ("Motion"). ECF 180. Uber 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 Uber's motion to compel Plaintiff X One, Inc. ("X One") to provide further responses to Uber's Requests for Admission Nos. 65-68. ECF 182. Uber seeks to seal the entirety of Exhibit C to the joint statement (ECF 180-2) on the grounds that X One has designated it "Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only" under the Protective Order in this case. ECF 180 at 1. X One failed to file a declaration demonstrating that the material is sealable, as required under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e), either by the original deadline or the extended deadline set in the Clerk's Notice issued July 12, 2019. ECF 235. There is therefore no basis upon which to seal Exhibit C to the Parties' June 7, 2019 joint discovery letter.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Uber's administrative motion to seal. Uber shall file the unredacted version of Exhibit C in the public record in accordance with Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(2).
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
