In re Lyft Inc. Securities Litigation

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 IN RELYFT INC. SECURITIES Case No. 19-cv-02690-HSG LITIGATION 8 ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE 9 MOTIONS TO SEAL AS MOOT 0 Re: Dkt. Nos. 205, 229, 236

11 a 12 Pending before the Court are three motions to seal related to Lead Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and the associated briefing. See Dkt. Nos. 205, 229, S 236. On February 10, 2022, the Court terminated the motion for leave as moot. Dkt. No. 242. On 5 June 16, 2022, the Court granted the parties’ joint stipulation and proposed order designating the ‘6 second amended complaint as the operative complaint. Dkt. No. 250. Lead Plaintiff then filed a = " second amended complaint, Dkt. No. 252, and associated motion to seal, Dkt. No. 251. Because a 18 the Court did not decide the motion for leave, the Court DENIES the three motions to seal as moot and will not consider the associated documents. See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Genentech, Inc., No. * 13-CV-0919 YGR, 2013 WL 4396718, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2013) (denying motion to seal documents related to motions that the court denied as moot). The parties are excused from filing public versions of the documents provisionally filed under seal in association with Dkt. Nos. 205, 229, and 236. Instead, the Court will address the administrative motion to seal at Dkt. No. 251. * IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 9/28/2022

27 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 8 United States District Judge