1 2 3 4 5 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8
CENTER SAN FRANCISCO, et al., 11 No. C 19-01438 WHA Plaintiffs, 12
v.
13 ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL LYFT, INC., 14 Defendant. 15
16 In connection with the bench trial, both parties moved to file under seal certain exhibits 17 to their briefing. Because the underlying briefing was more than tangentially related to the 18 merits of the case, compelling reasons are required to warrant sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. 19 Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). 20 Compelling reasons having been shown, the narrowly-tailored requests to seal portions of 21 the documents listed below are GRANTED. Except to the extent stated below, the requests to 22 seal are DENIED. 23 Plaintiffs’ request to file under seal portions of their Request for Judicial Notice Re 24 Mathematical Equation Results and SEC filing is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of 25 supportive declaration pursuant to our Civil Local Rules 79-5(e)* (Dkt. No. 186). Plaintiffs 26
27 * Note that our new Civil Local Rules became effective on November 1. This order has assessed 1 shall postpone filing any unredacted versions of documents ordered unsealed for seven days. 2 Defendant Lyft may have SEVEN DAYS from the date of this order to SHOW CAUSE why it did 3 not timely respond in support of sealing portions of the exhibits to Dkt. No. 186 Exhs. 1 and 2. 4 Though Lyft was allowed to keep confidential certain information about its ride data at 5 summary judgment, and though Lyft has articulated a need to retain confidentiality to avoid 6 competitors “reverse-engineering” price and algorithm features, this trial focused on the cost to 7 Lyft of its WAV rides (see Dkt. No. 200-1 ¶¶ 4–7). Evidence of costs in other cities factored 8 centrally in the analysis of the merits, as did evidence of Lyft’s attempts and ideas about how 9 to reduce costs and the feasibility of those efforts. Our Findings of Fact and Conclusions of 10 Law included only the information that ultimately proved necessary to resolve plaintiffs’ 11 claims, but it does not account for all evidence essential to the Findings. In charting a path 12 through the evidence, this Court was required to weigh all admitted evidence for its potential 13 bearing on the ultimate question. Sealing will be denied only for the most salient information. 14 With the exception of Dkt. No. 186, Exhs. 1 and 2, all revised materials shall be filed 15 within TWENTY-ONE DAYS of this order. 16 DOCUMENT PORTIONS PORTIONS TO BE SEALED 17 SOUGHT TO BE Plaintiffs’ Proposed Findings of Fact and Highlighted Highlighted portions of 19 Conclusions of Law (Plaintiffs’) portions of ¶¶ 56, 105. pages 6, 10, 12. 20 Exhibit 2 (contract between Defendant and Entire The entire document shall 21 Hertz dated February 24, 2020) to the document be filed publicly except 22 Declaration of Marie Jonas in Support of for portions of: Defendant Lyft, Inc.’s Motions in Limine Sections 3.1; 23 Section 3.2 (only “Hertz will acquire . . . 24 follows:”); Section 5.1; 25 Section 6.1–6.3; 26 Schedule 3. Exhibit G (contract between Defendant and Entire As stated above, the 27 Hertz dated February 24, 2020) to the document entire document shall be Plaintiffs’ Oppositions to Defendant’s Sections 3.1; 1 Motions in Limine Section 3.2 (only “Hertz 2 will acquire . . . follows:”); 3 Section 5.1; Section 6.1–6.3; 4 Schedule 3. Exhibit J to the Declaration of Michelle Iorio Entire Entire document 5 in Support of Plaintiffs’ Oppositions to document 6 Defendant’s Motions in Limine 7 Exhibit K to the Declaration of Michelle Entire Highlighted portions of: Iorio in Support of Plaintiffs’ Oppositions to document Page 1 (“Goals . . . 8 Defendant’s Motions in Limine California)” and The remainder of page 1 9 except “In the last month . 10 . . rides)”); Page 2 (First bullet and 11 the first figure only); Page 3 (the row 12 beginning “bookings”; item no. 4 under 13 “Principles”; items nos. 1 14 and 3 under “Initiatives”); Page 4. 15 16 17 18 19 Exhibit 1 (April 30, 2021 Expert Report of Highlighted All contents shall be filed Alice Grossman, Ph.D.) to the Declaration of portions. publicly, except for the 20 Marie Jonas in Support of Defendant Lyft, portions quoting materials 21 Inc.’s Motion in Limine No. 5 to Exclude the that this order has Opinions of Alice Grossman, Ph.D. otherwise allowed under 22 seal. 23 Exhibit 2 (May 10, 2021 Rebuttal Expert Highlighted All contents shall be filed Report of Marc Rysman, Ph.D.) to the portions. publicly, except for the 24 Declaration of Marie Jonas in Support of portions quoting materials 25 Defendant Lyft, Inc.’s Motion in Limine No. that this order has 5 to Exclude the Opinions of Alice otherwise allowed under 26 Grossman, Ph.D. seal. 27 Exhibit A (April 30, 2021 Expert Report of Highlighted As stated above, all 1 Alice Grossman, Ph.D.) to the Declaration of portions. contents shall be filed 2 Melissa Riess in Support of Plaintiffs’ publicly, except for the Opposition to Defendant Lyft’s Motion in portions quoting materials 3 Limine No. 5 to Exclude the Opinions of that this order has Alice Grossman, Ph.D. otherwise allowed under 4 seal. 5 Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 4 to Highlighted None. 6 Exclude Testimony of Dr. Marc Rysman portions of page 6 7 Exhibit A (April 30, 2021 Expert Report of Highlighted As stated above, all Alice Grossman, Ph.D.) to the Declaration of portions. contents shall be filed 8 Melissa Riess in Support of Plaintiffs’ publicly, except for the Motion in Limine No. 4 to Exclude portions quoting materials 9 Testimony of Dr. Marc Rysman that this order has 10 otherwise allowed under seal. 11 Exhibit B (May 10, 2021 Rebuttal Expert Highlighted As stated above, all 12 Report of Marc Rysman, Ph.D.) to the portions. contents shall be filed Declaration of Melissa Riess in Support of publicly, except for the 13 Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 4 to portions quoting materials 14 Exclude Testimony of Dr. Marc Rysman that this order has otherwise allowed under 15 seal. 16 Exhibit C (May 12, 2021 Excerpts from the Highlighted None. Deposition Transcript of Marc Rysman, Portions 17 Ph.D.) to the Declaration of Melissa Riess in 18 Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 4 to Exclude Testimony of Dr. Marc Rysman 19 20 Defendant Lyft Inc.’s Opposition to Highlighted Consistent with the above 21 Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 4 to portions of page ruling on Dr. Rysman’s Exclude Testimony of Dr. Marc Rysman 3 report, this shall be filed 22 publicly because it is central to the 23 determination of whether other cities provided 24 comparable examples of 25 WAV models. 26 27 Plaintiffs’ Updated Proposed Findings of Highlighted Portions highlighted of ¶ 1 Fact and Conclusions of Law portions of 130. The remainder of 2 pages 7, 9, 12, the highlighted portions 13, 14, 15. shall be filed publicly 3 because it is essential to the merits. 4 5 Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 4 Page 6, line 16 None. 6 Exhibit A (April 30, 2021 Expert Report of Highlighted As stated above, all 7 Alice Grossman, Ph.D.) to the Declaration of portions of contents shall be filed Melissa Riess in Support of Plaintiffs’ pages 14, 15, publicly, except for the 8 Motion in Limine No. 4 to Exclude 16, 17, 21, 22, portions quoting materials Testimony of Dr. Marc Rysman 23, 24, 25, 28. that this order has 9 otherwise allowed under 10 seal. 11 Exhibit B (May 10, 2021 Rebuttal Expert Highlighted As stated above, all Report of Marc Rysman, Ph.D.) to the portions of contents shall be filed 12 Declaration of Melissa Riess in Support of pages 7, 11, 12, publicly, except for the Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 4 to 19, 20. portions quoting materials 13 Exclude Testimony of Dr. Marc Rysman that this order has 14 otherwise allowed under seal. 15 Exhibit C (May 12, 2021 Excerpts from the Highlighted None.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8
CENTER SAN FRANCISCO, et al., 11 No. C 19-01438 WHA Plaintiffs, 12
v.
13 ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL LYFT, INC., 14 Defendant. 15
16 In connection with the bench trial, both parties moved to file under seal certain exhibits 17 to their briefing. Because the underlying briefing was more than tangentially related to the 18 merits of the case, compelling reasons are required to warrant sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. 19 Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). 20 Compelling reasons having been shown, the narrowly-tailored requests to seal portions of 21 the documents listed below are GRANTED. Except to the extent stated below, the requests to 22 seal are DENIED. 23 Plaintiffs’ request to file under seal portions of their Request for Judicial Notice Re 24 Mathematical Equation Results and SEC filing is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of 25 supportive declaration pursuant to our Civil Local Rules 79-5(e)* (Dkt. No. 186). Plaintiffs 26
27 * Note that our new Civil Local Rules became effective on November 1. This order has assessed 1 shall postpone filing any unredacted versions of documents ordered unsealed for seven days. 2 Defendant Lyft may have SEVEN DAYS from the date of this order to SHOW CAUSE why it did 3 not timely respond in support of sealing portions of the exhibits to Dkt. No. 186 Exhs. 1 and 2. 4 Though Lyft was allowed to keep confidential certain information about its ride data at 5 summary judgment, and though Lyft has articulated a need to retain confidentiality to avoid 6 competitors “reverse-engineering” price and algorithm features, this trial focused on the cost to 7 Lyft of its WAV rides (see Dkt. No. 200-1 ¶¶ 4–7). Evidence of costs in other cities factored 8 centrally in the analysis of the merits, as did evidence of Lyft’s attempts and ideas about how 9 to reduce costs and the feasibility of those efforts. Our Findings of Fact and Conclusions of 10 Law included only the information that ultimately proved necessary to resolve plaintiffs’ 11 claims, but it does not account for all evidence essential to the Findings. In charting a path 12 through the evidence, this Court was required to weigh all admitted evidence for its potential 13 bearing on the ultimate question. Sealing will be denied only for the most salient information. 14 With the exception of Dkt. No. 186, Exhs. 1 and 2, all revised materials shall be filed 15 within TWENTY-ONE DAYS of this order. 16 DOCUMENT PORTIONS PORTIONS TO BE SEALED 17 SOUGHT TO BE Plaintiffs’ Proposed Findings of Fact and Highlighted Highlighted portions of 19 Conclusions of Law (Plaintiffs’) portions of ¶¶ 56, 105. pages 6, 10, 12. 20 Exhibit 2 (contract between Defendant and Entire The entire document shall 21 Hertz dated February 24, 2020) to the document be filed publicly except 22 Declaration of Marie Jonas in Support of for portions of: Defendant Lyft, Inc.’s Motions in Limine Sections 3.1; 23 Section 3.2 (only “Hertz will acquire . . . 24 follows:”); Section 5.1; 25 Section 6.1–6.3; 26 Schedule 3. Exhibit G (contract between Defendant and Entire As stated above, the 27 Hertz dated February 24, 2020) to the document entire document shall be Plaintiffs’ Oppositions to Defendant’s Sections 3.1; 1 Motions in Limine Section 3.2 (only “Hertz 2 will acquire . . . follows:”); 3 Section 5.1; Section 6.1–6.3; 4 Schedule 3. Exhibit J to the Declaration of Michelle Iorio Entire Entire document 5 in Support of Plaintiffs’ Oppositions to document 6 Defendant’s Motions in Limine 7 Exhibit K to the Declaration of Michelle Entire Highlighted portions of: Iorio in Support of Plaintiffs’ Oppositions to document Page 1 (“Goals . . . 8 Defendant’s Motions in Limine California)” and The remainder of page 1 9 except “In the last month . 10 . . rides)”); Page 2 (First bullet and 11 the first figure only); Page 3 (the row 12 beginning “bookings”; item no. 4 under 13 “Principles”; items nos. 1 14 and 3 under “Initiatives”); Page 4. 15 16 17 18 19 Exhibit 1 (April 30, 2021 Expert Report of Highlighted All contents shall be filed Alice Grossman, Ph.D.) to the Declaration of portions. publicly, except for the 20 Marie Jonas in Support of Defendant Lyft, portions quoting materials 21 Inc.’s Motion in Limine No. 5 to Exclude the that this order has Opinions of Alice Grossman, Ph.D. otherwise allowed under 22 seal. 23 Exhibit 2 (May 10, 2021 Rebuttal Expert Highlighted All contents shall be filed Report of Marc Rysman, Ph.D.) to the portions. publicly, except for the 24 Declaration of Marie Jonas in Support of portions quoting materials 25 Defendant Lyft, Inc.’s Motion in Limine No. that this order has 5 to Exclude the Opinions of Alice otherwise allowed under 26 Grossman, Ph.D. seal. 27 Exhibit A (April 30, 2021 Expert Report of Highlighted As stated above, all 1 Alice Grossman, Ph.D.) to the Declaration of portions. contents shall be filed 2 Melissa Riess in Support of Plaintiffs’ publicly, except for the Opposition to Defendant Lyft’s Motion in portions quoting materials 3 Limine No. 5 to Exclude the Opinions of that this order has Alice Grossman, Ph.D. otherwise allowed under 4 seal. 5 Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 4 to Highlighted None. 6 Exclude Testimony of Dr. Marc Rysman portions of page 6 7 Exhibit A (April 30, 2021 Expert Report of Highlighted As stated above, all Alice Grossman, Ph.D.) to the Declaration of portions. contents shall be filed 8 Melissa Riess in Support of Plaintiffs’ publicly, except for the Motion in Limine No. 4 to Exclude portions quoting materials 9 Testimony of Dr. Marc Rysman that this order has 10 otherwise allowed under seal. 11 Exhibit B (May 10, 2021 Rebuttal Expert Highlighted As stated above, all 12 Report of Marc Rysman, Ph.D.) to the portions. contents shall be filed Declaration of Melissa Riess in Support of publicly, except for the 13 Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 4 to portions quoting materials 14 Exclude Testimony of Dr. Marc Rysman that this order has otherwise allowed under 15 seal. 16 Exhibit C (May 12, 2021 Excerpts from the Highlighted None. Deposition Transcript of Marc Rysman, Portions 17 Ph.D.) to the Declaration of Melissa Riess in 18 Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 4 to Exclude Testimony of Dr. Marc Rysman 19 20 Defendant Lyft Inc.’s Opposition to Highlighted Consistent with the above 21 Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 4 to portions of page ruling on Dr. Rysman’s Exclude Testimony of Dr. Marc Rysman 3 report, this shall be filed 22 publicly because it is central to the 23 determination of whether other cities provided 24 comparable examples of 25 WAV models. 26 27 Plaintiffs’ Updated Proposed Findings of Highlighted Portions highlighted of ¶ 1 Fact and Conclusions of Law portions of 130. The remainder of 2 pages 7, 9, 12, the highlighted portions 13, 14, 15. shall be filed publicly 3 because it is essential to the merits. 4 5 Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 4 Page 6, line 16 None. 6 Exhibit A (April 30, 2021 Expert Report of Highlighted As stated above, all 7 Alice Grossman, Ph.D.) to the Declaration of portions of contents shall be filed Melissa Riess in Support of Plaintiffs’ pages 14, 15, publicly, except for the 8 Motion in Limine No. 4 to Exclude 16, 17, 21, 22, portions quoting materials Testimony of Dr. Marc Rysman 23, 24, 25, 28. that this order has 9 otherwise allowed under 10 seal. 11 Exhibit B (May 10, 2021 Rebuttal Expert Highlighted As stated above, all Report of Marc Rysman, Ph.D.) to the portions of contents shall be filed 12 Declaration of Melissa Riess in Support of pages 7, 11, 12, publicly, except for the Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 4 to 19, 20. portions quoting materials 13 Exclude Testimony of Dr. Marc Rysman that this order has 14 otherwise allowed under seal. 15 Exhibit C (May 12, 2021 Excerpts from the Highlighted None. 16 Deposition Transcript of Marc Rysman, portions of Ph.D.) to the Declaration of Melissa Riess in pages 72, 106 17 Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 18 4 to Exclude Testimony of Dr. Marc Rysman 19 Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion Highlighted Consistent with the above 20 in Limine No. 4 to Exclude Testimony of Dr. portions of page ruling on Dr. Rysman’s Marc Rysman 3 report, this shall be filed 21 publicly because it is 22 central to the determination of whether 23 other cities provided comparable examples of 24 WAV models. 25 26 27 Plaintiffs’ Proffer of Evidence Regarding Highlighted The email addresses, 1 Comparability of Jurisdictions material on phone numbers, and any 2 page 4, 5, and 6, other contact information email excerpts may be redacted. The 3 on pages 5, 6, remainder of the and 7. document, including the 4 highlighted materials on pages 4, 5, and 6, shall be 5 filed publicly. 6 Exhibit A (April 30, 2021 Expert Report of Highlighted As stated above, all 7 Alice Grossman, Ph.D.) to the Declaration of portions of contents shall be filed Melissa Riess in Support of Plaintiffs’ pages 14, 15, publicly, except for the 8 Proffer of Evidence Regarding 16, 17, 21, 22, portions quoting materials Comparability of Jurisdictions 23, 24, 25, 28. that this order has 9 otherwise allowed under 10 seal. 11 Exhibit B (Deposition of Audrey Ren) to the Highlighted Highlighted portions. Declaration of Melissa Riess in Support of portions of page 12 Plaintiffs’ Proffer of Evidence Regarding 117. Comparability of Jurisdictions 13 14 Exhibit C (Exhibit 55 to the Deposition of Entire The email addresses, Audrey Ren) to the Declaration of Melissa document phone numbers, and any 15 Riess in Support of Plaintiffs’ Proffer of other contact information Evidence Regarding Comparability of may be redacted. The 16 Jurisdictions remainder of the 17 document shall be filed publicly as the 18 information referenced in the emails is from over a 19 year ago and is stale. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Exhibit D (Exhibit 45 to the Deposition of Entire The email addresses, 1 Audrey Ren) to the Declaration of Melissa document phone numbers, and any 2 Riess in Support of Plaintiffs’ Proffer of other contact information Evidence Regarding Comparability of may be redacted. The 3 Jurisdictions remainder of the document shall be filed 4 publicly as the information referenced in 5 the emails is from over a 6 year ago and is stale. 7 8 Exhibit E (Exhibit 36 to the Deposition of Entire The email addresses, 9 Andres Munoz) to the Declaration of Melissa document phone numbers, and any 10 Riess in Support of Plaintiffs’ Proffer of other contact information Evidence Regarding Comparability of may be redacted. The 11 Jurisdictions remainder of the document shall be filed 12 publicly as the information referenced in 13 the emails is from over a 14 year ago and is stale. 15 16 Trial Exhibit No. 20: Highlighted Highlighted portions of: 17 LYFT00009579LYFT00009587 [Ex. 48 to portions of Page 3 (“only has . . . 18 deposition of Audrey Ren, document titled pages 1, 3, 4, 5, week]” and “where . . . “WAV”] 6, 7. cost)”); 19 Page 5 (“we . . . service)” and “no . . . length”); 20 Page 6 (highlighted portion in paragraph 21 beginning “Validate 22 financial and operational . . .”); 23 Page 7 (“Cost of opting out” and “of not 24 complying” columns 25 only).
26 27 Trial Exhibit No. 21: Highlighted Highlighted portions of: 1 LYFT000028668LYFT000028692 [Ex. 46 to portions of Page 3 (“Failure . . . 8” 2 deposition of Audrey Ren, Powerpoint pages 3-5, 7, 8, (bullet five) and presentation titled “WAV National 10, 11, 12, 13, highlighted portion 3 Strategy”] 14, 15, 17, 20, following “Phase Four”); 21, 22, 23, 24. Page 4; 4 Page 14; Page 15 (Only the text 5 below “Incremental Tech 6 Considerations”) Page 24 (Left-hand 7 column of “Shape Demand” only). 8 Trial Exhibit No. 61: Entire The entire document shall LYFT00001967LYFT000001979 [Ex. 4 to document. be filed publicly except 9 deposition of Andres Muñoz, May 1, 2019 for portions of: 10 contract between Lyft and First Transit, titled Page 1 (Section 2.1: “Wheelchair Accessible Vehicle “Drivers . . . with the 11 Agreement”] Drivers.”); Page 12 (“Company shall 12 provide . . . in the Territory”; “Company 13 agrees to . . . 9:00 PM” 14 and “Lyft shall pay . . . $58.62”). 15 16 17 Trial Exhibit No. 64: Highlighted Highlighted portions of: 18 LYFT000032148LYFT00032160 [Ex. 66 to portions of Page 5 (“(note: . . . deposition of Isabella Gerundio, document pages 5, 6, 7, 8, anyway)”); 19 titled “Lyft Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles 9, and 10. Page 6 (“because the Overview”] majority . . . to specific 20 drivers.”); Page 7 (“originally an . . . 21 to return.”); 22 Page 8; Page 9; 23 Page 10 (Reserved . . . there [sic] system” and 24 “Due to . . . location 25 data.”). 26 27 Trial Exhibit No. 79: April 30, 2021 Expert Highlighted As stated above, all 1 Report of Alice Grossman, Ph.D. portions of contents shall be filed 2 pages 14, 15, publicly, except for the 16, 17, 21, 22, portions quoting materials 3 23, 24, 25, and that this order has 28. otherwise allowed under 4 seal. 5 Trial Exhibit No. 95: Exhibit 55 to the Highlighted The email addresses, 6 deposition of Audrey Ren, email with subject portions. phone numbers, and any line “BKN WAV progress to date” other contact information 7 [LYFT00003988] may be redacted. The remainder of the 8 document shall be filed publicly as the 9 information referenced in 10 the emails is from over a year ago and is stale. 11 Trial Exhibit No. 101: July 31, 2020 Expert Highlighted None. Report of Marc Rysman (including Figures portions of PDF 12 and Tables) pages 14, 15, 17, 20, 22, 37, 13 54, 55, 59, and 14 60. 15 Trial Exhibit No. 106: Lyft Business Model Highlighted Highlighted portions of 101 presentation portions of pages 14 and 15. 16 pages 12, 14, 17 and 15. Trial Exhibit No. 150: Contract between Lyft Entire As stated above, the 18 and Hertz dated February 24, 2020 document. entire document shall be (LYFT00032426) filed publicly except for 19 portions of: Sections 3.1; 20 Section 3.2 (only “Hertz 21 will acquire . . . follows:”); 22 Section 5.1; Section 6.1–6.3; 23 Schedule 3. 24 25 26 27 1 Trial Exhibit No. 177: May 10, 2021 Highlighted As stated above, all Rebuttal Expert Report of Marc Rysman, portions of contents shall be filed 2 Ph.D. (including Figures and Tables) pages 10, 14, publicly, except for the 15, 22, and 23. portions quoting materials 3 that this order has otherwise allowed under 4 seal. 5 6
8 9 Dated: December 17, 2021.
10 | Pee M WILLIAM ALSUP 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14 © 15 16
= 17
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28