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