1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MATIAS MALIG, AS TRUSTEE FOR Case No. 19-cv-02690-HSG THE MALIG FAMILY TRUST, 8 ORDER REGARDING Plaintiff, ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO 9 SEAL v. 10 Re: Dkt. Nos. 167, 184, 187, 189 LYFT, INC., et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Pending before the Court are four motions to seal filed by the parties related to Plaintiff’s 14 motion for relief from a discovery order, Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, and 15 Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. See Dkt. Nos. 167, 184, 187, 189. For the reasons 16 detailed below, the Court GRANTS two motions and DENIES two motions. 17 I. LEGAL STANDARD 18 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 19 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 20 v.City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 21 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 22 and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 23 access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 24 strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 25 must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 26 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 27 understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations 1 disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a 2 vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public 3 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. 4 Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records 5 may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 6 without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. 7 Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 8 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 9 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80 10 (quotations omitted). This requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm 11 will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 12 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of 13 harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman 14 Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). 15 II. DISCUSSION 16 Because the parties seek to seal materials related to a motion for judgment on the pleadings 17 and a motion for class certification, which are more than tangentially related to the underlying 18 causes of action, the Court applies the compelling reasons standard. The Court will apply the 19 lower good cause standard for documents related to the motion for relief from the Magistrate 20 Judge’s discovery order. 21 As detailed in the table below, the majority of the materials Defendants seek to seal are 22 internal business documents. Defendants assert that “Lyft treats the details of the information it 23 requests to maintain under seal as confidential and sensitive material, and the public disclosure of 24 this information would cause competitive harm to Lyft.” Dkt. No. 186 ¶ 5; see also Dkt. Nos. 175 25 ¶ 6, 187 at 2, 189 at 2-3. However, not all information maintained as confidential in the normal 26 course of business merits sealing. The Court must “balance[] the competing interests of the public 27 and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 1 inspection” to ensure that its records are not used “as sources of business information that might 2 harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon v. Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. at 598. In this vein, 3 the Ninth Circuit has recognized that compelling reasons can warrant sealing trade secrets, which 4 “may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one’s 5 business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not 6 know or use it.” In re Electronic Arts, Inc., 298 Fed. Appx. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (directing the 7 District Court to seal the defendant’s pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum 8 payment terms in a licensing agreement). To the extent Defendants argue that sealing the 9 information “would permit the Lyft Defendants to maintain the confidentiality of the information 10 that Lyft Defendants have designated as CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL,” the 11 Court repeats that a designation of confidentiality is not sufficient to establish that a document is 12 sealable. See Dkt. Nos. 175 at 5, 186 ¶ 4; Civ. L. R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). 13 The parties seek to seal portions of the Plaintiff’s motion for relief from Magistrate Judge 14 Beeler’s Discovery Order because they reflect information from documents already filed under 15 seal: the Joint Letter Brief, Exhibits B, D, E, and 1 to the Joint Letter Brief, and the Discovery 16 Order. See Dkt. No. 167 at 3; see also Dkt. Nos. 161, 162. Judge Beeler previously concluded 17 that these underlying materials warranted sealing under the Local Rules. See Dkt. No. 161. 18 Defendants also argue that the current portions sought to be sealed contain “confidential and 19 sensitive” information, public disclosure of which “would cause competitive harm to Lyft.” Dkt. 20 No. 175 at 2. The Court finds good cause exists to seal the parties’ proposed redactions. See, e.g., 21 Teradata Corp. et al., v. SAP SE, et al., No. 18-cv-03670-WHO, 2019 WL 5698057, at *1 n.1 22 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2019) (granting administrative motion to seal portions of the motion for relief 23 that reference information already sealed by the magistrate judge). 24 The sealing requests related to the motion for judgment on the pleadings, Dkt. Nos. 184 25 and 187, concern statistical information Defendants allege is derived from confidential rider 26 reports and “could reveal proprietary details regarding Lyft’s operations, the number of rides taken 27 on the platform, and details relating to insurance incidents.” Dkt. Nos. 186 ¶ 5, 187 at 2. 1 statistics. No details of any individual rider or incident can be inferred, nor is there operational 2 information beyond the total number of alleged sexual assaults, a relevant issue in this case. As 3 already noted, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s 4 embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the 5 court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 6 In contrast, the information sought to be sealed relating to the motion for class certification 7 is the sort of non-public information that could be used by a third party to gain a competitive 8 advantage. See Dkt. No. 189.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MATIAS MALIG, AS TRUSTEE FOR Case No. 19-cv-02690-HSG THE MALIG FAMILY TRUST, 8 ORDER REGARDING Plaintiff, ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO 9 SEAL v. 10 Re: Dkt. Nos. 167, 184, 187, 189 LYFT, INC., et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Pending before the Court are four motions to seal filed by the parties related to Plaintiff’s 14 motion for relief from a discovery order, Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, and 15 Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. See Dkt. Nos. 167, 184, 187, 189. For the reasons 16 detailed below, the Court GRANTS two motions and DENIES two motions. 17 I. LEGAL STANDARD 18 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 19 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 20 v.City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 21 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 22 and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 23 access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 24 strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 25 must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 26 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 27 understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations 1 disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a 2 vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public 3 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. 4 Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records 5 may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 6 without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. 7 Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 8 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 9 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80 10 (quotations omitted). This requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm 11 will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 12 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of 13 harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman 14 Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). 15 II. DISCUSSION 16 Because the parties seek to seal materials related to a motion for judgment on the pleadings 17 and a motion for class certification, which are more than tangentially related to the underlying 18 causes of action, the Court applies the compelling reasons standard. The Court will apply the 19 lower good cause standard for documents related to the motion for relief from the Magistrate 20 Judge’s discovery order. 21 As detailed in the table below, the majority of the materials Defendants seek to seal are 22 internal business documents. Defendants assert that “Lyft treats the details of the information it 23 requests to maintain under seal as confidential and sensitive material, and the public disclosure of 24 this information would cause competitive harm to Lyft.” Dkt. No. 186 ¶ 5; see also Dkt. Nos. 175 25 ¶ 6, 187 at 2, 189 at 2-3. However, not all information maintained as confidential in the normal 26 course of business merits sealing. The Court must “balance[] the competing interests of the public 27 and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 1 inspection” to ensure that its records are not used “as sources of business information that might 2 harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon v. Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. at 598. In this vein, 3 the Ninth Circuit has recognized that compelling reasons can warrant sealing trade secrets, which 4 “may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one’s 5 business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not 6 know or use it.” In re Electronic Arts, Inc., 298 Fed. Appx. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (directing the 7 District Court to seal the defendant’s pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum 8 payment terms in a licensing agreement). To the extent Defendants argue that sealing the 9 information “would permit the Lyft Defendants to maintain the confidentiality of the information 10 that Lyft Defendants have designated as CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL,” the 11 Court repeats that a designation of confidentiality is not sufficient to establish that a document is 12 sealable. See Dkt. Nos. 175 at 5, 186 ¶ 4; Civ. L. R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). 13 The parties seek to seal portions of the Plaintiff’s motion for relief from Magistrate Judge 14 Beeler’s Discovery Order because they reflect information from documents already filed under 15 seal: the Joint Letter Brief, Exhibits B, D, E, and 1 to the Joint Letter Brief, and the Discovery 16 Order. See Dkt. No. 167 at 3; see also Dkt. Nos. 161, 162. Judge Beeler previously concluded 17 that these underlying materials warranted sealing under the Local Rules. See Dkt. No. 161. 18 Defendants also argue that the current portions sought to be sealed contain “confidential and 19 sensitive” information, public disclosure of which “would cause competitive harm to Lyft.” Dkt. 20 No. 175 at 2. The Court finds good cause exists to seal the parties’ proposed redactions. See, e.g., 21 Teradata Corp. et al., v. SAP SE, et al., No. 18-cv-03670-WHO, 2019 WL 5698057, at *1 n.1 22 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2019) (granting administrative motion to seal portions of the motion for relief 23 that reference information already sealed by the magistrate judge). 24 The sealing requests related to the motion for judgment on the pleadings, Dkt. Nos. 184 25 and 187, concern statistical information Defendants allege is derived from confidential rider 26 reports and “could reveal proprietary details regarding Lyft’s operations, the number of rides taken 27 on the platform, and details relating to insurance incidents.” Dkt. Nos. 186 ¶ 5, 187 at 2. 1 statistics. No details of any individual rider or incident can be inferred, nor is there operational 2 information beyond the total number of alleged sexual assaults, a relevant issue in this case. As 3 already noted, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s 4 embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the 5 court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 6 In contrast, the information sought to be sealed relating to the motion for class certification 7 is the sort of non-public information that could be used by a third party to gain a competitive 8 advantage. See Dkt. No. 189. As Defendants explain, the requested redaction of Exhibit 3 to the 9 Grant Declaration is “tailored to include only statistics regarding the method of acquisition of 10 riders and rate of ‘churn’ (or turnover)” that competitors could use to Defendants’ detriment, such 11 as by leveraging the information to poach Defendants’ drivers. Id. at 2-3. Defendants also ask to 12 seal the financial analysis attached to an investor’s declaration. See id. at 3. This is a much more 13 tailored redaction than originally requested. See Dkt. Nos. 134, 178 at 3. The Court agrees that 14 this narrow request protects detailed analyses and calculations, including “confidential trading 15 practices and research techniques,” that if revealed could be used to the investor’s competitive 16 disadvantage. See Dkt. No. 189 at 3. 17 Docket No. Public / Document Portion(s) Sought to Ruling 18 (Sealed) be Sealed 19 Dkt. No. 167 – GRANTED Dkt. No. 168 / (Dkt. Plaintiff’s Motion for Excerpts (see Dkt. GRANTED 20 No. 167-3) Relief from Order of Nos. 167 and 167-3) As explained above, Magistrate Judge the identified portions 21 contain information from documents 22 previously ordered 23 sealed and the Court finds good cause to 24 seal that information here. 25 Dkt. No. 168-1 / (Dkt. [Proposed] Order Excerpts (see Dkt. GRANTED No. 167-5) Granting Motion for Nos. 167 and 167-5) As explained above, 26 Relief from Order of the identified portions 27 Magistrate Judge contain information from documents sealed and the Court 1 finds good cause to 2 seal that information here. 3 Dkt. No. 184 – DENIED Dkt. No. 159 / (Dkt. Plaintiff’s Opposition Excerpts (see Dkt. DENIED 4 No. 184-4) to Defendants’ No. 184) As explained above, Motion for Judgment Defendants have not 5 on the Pleadings established a 6 compelling reason that overrides the 7 presumption of public access. 8 Dkt. No. 159-1 / (Dkt. Declaration of Jeffrey Excerpts (see Dkt. DENIED No. 184-6) C.Block in Support No. 184) As explained above, 9 of Plaintiff’s Defendants have not 10 Opposition to established a Defendants’ Motion compelling reason 11 for Judgment on the that overrides the Pleadings presumption of public 12 access. 13 Dkt. No. 187 – DENIED Dkt. No. 170 / (Dkt. Defendants’ Reply in Excerpts (see Dkt. DENIED 14 No. 187-4) Support of Motion for No. 187) As explained above, Judgment on the Defendants have not 15 Pleadings established a compelling reason 16 that overrides the 17 presumption of public access. 18 Dkt. No. 189 – GRANTED Dkt. No. 118-3 / (Dkt. Exhibit 3 to the Portion of page 22 GRANTED 19 No. 189-4) Declaration of Meryn The portions sought 20 Grant in Support of to be sealed contain Defendants’ confidential 21 Opposition to proprietary business Plaintiff’s Motion for information that does 22 Class Certification not directly pertain to the alleged 23 misrepresentations in 24 this action and, if publicly released, 25 could be used to Defendants’ 26 competitive disadvantage. 27 Dkt. No. 135-2 / (Dkt. Exhibit 24 to the Pages 32-72 in their GRANTED I Declaration of Meryn to be sealed contain Grant in Support of confidential 2 Defendants’ proprietary business Opposition to information, 3 Plaintiff's Motion for including detailed Class Certification investment strategies, 4 that if publicly 5 released could be used to the investor’s 6 competitive disadvantage. 7 Wl. CONCLUSION 8 The Court GRANTS the motion to seal as to docket numbers 167 and 189 and DENIES it 9 as to docket numbers 184 and 187. The Court DIRECTS the parties to file revised public 10 versions of all documents for which the proposed sealing has been denied within seven days of 11 this order. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(1), documents filed under seal as to which the 12 administrative motions are granted will remain under seal.
13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 6 Dated: 3/31/2022 15 MU ] Wh □ 16 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge = 17
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28