LYFT, INC., Case No. 21-cv-04653-BLF
Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL [Re: ECF Nos. 76, 79] Defendant.
Before the Court are Plaintiff Lyft, Inc.’s (“Lyft”) administrative motions to consider whether another party’s material should be sealed under Civil Local Rule 79-5(f). See ECF Nos. 76, 79. Lyft’s sealing motions pertain to documents it filed in support of its (1) Motion to Compel Discovery and Compliance with Local Patent Rules (ECF No. 75) and (2) Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 78). The information at issue was designated as confidential by Defendant AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS Software”). Lyft’s motions are supported by declarations filed by AGIS Software. See ECF Nos. 86, 87. Based on the below reasoning, the Court GRANTS IN PART Lyft’s administrative motions. “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101–02 (9th Cir. of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1)(i). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5 requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1)(ii). Furthermore, when a party (the “Moving Party”) seeks to seal a document that has been designated as confidential by another party or non-party (the “Designating Party”), the Moving Party must file a Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed under Local Rule 79-5(f). The Moving Party must file a motion “identify[ing] each document or portions thereof for which sealing is sought.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(1). “Within 7 days of the motion’s filing, the Designating Party must file a statement and/or declaration as described in [Civil Local Rule 79-5(c)(1)].” Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3). “If any party wishes to file a response, it must do so no later than 4 days after the Designating Party files its statement and/or declaration.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(4). Because Lyft’s sealing motions relate to a motion to compel discovery and a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, the Court finds that the “good cause” standard applies. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097. The Court has reviewed the sealing motions. The Court finds that AGIS Software has shown good cause to file the documents and portions of documents at issue under seal given the sensitive financial and business information they contain. See, e.g., In re Electronic Arts, 298 Fed.Appx. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding compelling reasons for sealing “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive strategy”); In re Google Location Hist. Litig., 514 F.Supp.3d 1147, 1162 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (“Compelling reasons may exist to seal ‘trade secrets, marketing strategies, product reports[.]’”) (quoting In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litig., No. 5:19–MD–02827–EJD, 2019 WL 1767158, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2019)); Krieger v. Atheros Commc’ns, Inc., No. 11–CV–00640–LHK, 2011 WL 2550831, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 25, 2011) (granting sealing request of “long-term financial projections, discussions of business strategy, and competitive analyses”). The Court rules as follows on Lyft’s motions to consider whether another party’s material should be sealed: Document Portions Sought to Decl. ISO Sealing Ruling Be Sealed ECF No. 75, Motion Highlighted portions Rubino Decl., GRANTED, as to Compel Discovery at: ECF No. 86 at 1–2 confidential business, and Compliance with • Page 2, line 13 financial, and Local Patent Rules • Page 5, lines 5–7 licensing information • Page 7, lines 5–6 of AGIS Software. • Page 7, lines 8–10 • Page 7, lines 16–19 • Page 7, lines 19–21 • Page 8, lines 24–25 • Page 8, line 28 to page 9, line 6 • Page 9, lines 6–8. ECF No. 76 at 1. ECF No. 75-1, Entire document. Rubino Decl., GRANTED, as Ex. 10, Defendant ECF No. 76 at 1. ECF No. 86 at 2–3 as confidential business, AGIS Software’s to the following financial, and First Supplemental portions: licensing information Objections and • Page 6, lines 4–8, of AGIS Software, Responses to Lyft 24–27 regarding the Inc.’s First Set of • Page 7, lines 1–7, following portions: Jurisdictional 13–17, 26–27 • Page 6, lines 4–8, Interrogatories • Page 8, 24–27 lines 22–27 • Page 7, lines 1–7, • Page 9, line 1 13–17, 26–27 • Page 10, • Page 8, lines 27–28 lines 22–27 Document Portions Sought to Decl. ISO Sealing Ruling Be Sealed • Page 12, lines 27–28 lines 3–28 • Page 11, • Pages 13–16 lines 1–11 • Page 17, • Page 12, lines 1–21 lines 3–28 • Page 20, • Pages 13–16 lines 12–14, • Page 17, 18–22, 23–27 lines 1–21 • Page 22, • Page 20, lines 14–22 lines 12–14, • Page 23, 18–22, 23–27 lines 15–27. • Page 22, lines 14–22 • Page 23, lines 15–27.
DENIED as to all other portions, as without evidentiary support from a declaration. ECF No. 75-1, Entire document. Rubino Decl., GRANTED, as Ex. 18, 30(b)(6) ECF No. 76 at 1. ECF No. 86 at 3. confidential business, Deposition Transcript financial, and of Thomas Meriam, licensing information dated March 22, 2022 of AGIS Software. ECF No. 78, Plaintiff Highlighted portions Rubino Decl., GRANTED, as Lyft Inc.’s Motion for at: ECF No. 87 at 1–2. confidential business, Leave to File First • Page 5, lines financial, and Amended Complaint 6–12, 18, 23–26 licensing information • Page 6, line 4 of AGIS Software. • Page 7, lines 13–14
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
LYFT, INC., Case No. 21-cv-04653-BLF
Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL [Re: ECF Nos. 76, 79] Defendant.
Before the Court are Plaintiff Lyft, Inc.’s (“Lyft”) administrative motions to consider whether another party’s material should be sealed under Civil Local Rule 79-5(f). See ECF Nos. 76, 79. Lyft’s sealing motions pertain to documents it filed in support of its (1) Motion to Compel Discovery and Compliance with Local Patent Rules (ECF No. 75) and (2) Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 78). The information at issue was designated as confidential by Defendant AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS Software”). Lyft’s motions are supported by declarations filed by AGIS Software. See ECF Nos. 86, 87. Based on the below reasoning, the Court GRANTS IN PART Lyft’s administrative motions. “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101–02 (9th Cir. of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1)(i). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5 requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1)(ii). Furthermore, when a party (the “Moving Party”) seeks to seal a document that has been designated as confidential by another party or non-party (the “Designating Party”), the Moving Party must file a Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed under Local Rule 79-5(f). The Moving Party must file a motion “identify[ing] each document or portions thereof for which sealing is sought.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(1). “Within 7 days of the motion’s filing, the Designating Party must file a statement and/or declaration as described in [Civil Local Rule 79-5(c)(1)].” Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3). “If any party wishes to file a response, it must do so no later than 4 days after the Designating Party files its statement and/or declaration.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(4). Because Lyft’s sealing motions relate to a motion to compel discovery and a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, the Court finds that the “good cause” standard applies. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097. The Court has reviewed the sealing motions. The Court finds that AGIS Software has shown good cause to file the documents and portions of documents at issue under seal given the sensitive financial and business information they contain. See, e.g., In re Electronic Arts, 298 Fed.Appx. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding compelling reasons for sealing “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive strategy”); In re Google Location Hist. Litig., 514 F.Supp.3d 1147, 1162 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (“Compelling reasons may exist to seal ‘trade secrets, marketing strategies, product reports[.]’”) (quoting In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litig., No. 5:19–MD–02827–EJD, 2019 WL 1767158, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2019)); Krieger v. Atheros Commc’ns, Inc., No. 11–CV–00640–LHK, 2011 WL 2550831, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 25, 2011) (granting sealing request of “long-term financial projections, discussions of business strategy, and competitive analyses”). The Court rules as follows on Lyft’s motions to consider whether another party’s material should be sealed: Document Portions Sought to Decl. ISO Sealing Ruling Be Sealed ECF No. 75, Motion Highlighted portions Rubino Decl., GRANTED, as to Compel Discovery at: ECF No. 86 at 1–2 confidential business, and Compliance with • Page 2, line 13 financial, and Local Patent Rules • Page 5, lines 5–7 licensing information • Page 7, lines 5–6 of AGIS Software. • Page 7, lines 8–10 • Page 7, lines 16–19 • Page 7, lines 19–21 • Page 8, lines 24–25 • Page 8, line 28 to page 9, line 6 • Page 9, lines 6–8. ECF No. 76 at 1. ECF No. 75-1, Entire document. Rubino Decl., GRANTED, as Ex. 10, Defendant ECF No. 76 at 1. ECF No. 86 at 2–3 as confidential business, AGIS Software’s to the following financial, and First Supplemental portions: licensing information Objections and • Page 6, lines 4–8, of AGIS Software, Responses to Lyft 24–27 regarding the Inc.’s First Set of • Page 7, lines 1–7, following portions: Jurisdictional 13–17, 26–27 • Page 6, lines 4–8, Interrogatories • Page 8, 24–27 lines 22–27 • Page 7, lines 1–7, • Page 9, line 1 13–17, 26–27 • Page 10, • Page 8, lines 27–28 lines 22–27 Document Portions Sought to Decl. ISO Sealing Ruling Be Sealed • Page 12, lines 27–28 lines 3–28 • Page 11, • Pages 13–16 lines 1–11 • Page 17, • Page 12, lines 1–21 lines 3–28 • Page 20, • Pages 13–16 lines 12–14, • Page 17, 18–22, 23–27 lines 1–21 • Page 22, • Page 20, lines 14–22 lines 12–14, • Page 23, 18–22, 23–27 lines 15–27. • Page 22, lines 14–22 • Page 23, lines 15–27.
DENIED as to all other portions, as without evidentiary support from a declaration. ECF No. 75-1, Entire document. Rubino Decl., GRANTED, as Ex. 18, 30(b)(6) ECF No. 76 at 1. ECF No. 86 at 3. confidential business, Deposition Transcript financial, and of Thomas Meriam, licensing information dated March 22, 2022 of AGIS Software. ECF No. 78, Plaintiff Highlighted portions Rubino Decl., GRANTED, as Lyft Inc.’s Motion for at: ECF No. 87 at 1–2. confidential business, Leave to File First • Page 5, lines financial, and Amended Complaint 6–12, 18, 23–26 licensing information • Page 6, line 4 of AGIS Software. • Page 7, lines 13–14
ECF No. 79 at 1. ECF No. 78-1, Ex. 1, Highlighted portions Rubino Decl., GRANTED, as First Amended at: ECF No. 87 at 2–3 as confidential business, Complaint • Page 4, lines to the highlighted financial, and 8–10, 16–17 portions at: licensing information • Page 5, lines • Page 5, lines of AGIS Software, 18–22 18–22 regarding the • Page 14, lines • Page 14, lines highlighted portions 13–17 13–17 at: • Page 15, lines 1, • Page 15, lines • Page 5, lines Document Portions Sought to Decl. ISO Sealing Ruling Be Sealed • Page 16, lines • Page 16, lines 13–17 15–16, 20–27 15–16, 20–27. • Page 15, lines • Page 17, lines 25–28 5–7, 12–13. • Page 16, lines 15–16, 20–27. ECF No. 79 at 1. DENIED, as without evidentiary support from a declaration, as to: • Page 4, lines 8–10, 16–17 • Page 15, lines 1, 16–19 • Page 17, lines 5–7, 12–13. ECF No. 78-1, Ex. 7, Entire document. Rubino Decl., GRANTED, as Defendant AGIS ECF No. 79 at 1–2. ECF No. 87 at 3–4 as confidential business, Software’s First to the following financial, and Supplemental portions: licensing information Objections and • Page 6, lines 4–8, of AGIS Software, Responses to Lyft 24–27 regarding the Inc.’s First Set of • Page 7, lines 1–7, following portions: Jurisdictional 13–17, 26–27 • Page 6, lines 4–8, Interrogatories • Page 8, 24–27 lines 22–27 • Page 7, lines 1–7, • Page 9, line 1 13–17, 26–27 • Page 10, • Page 8, lines 27–28 lines 22–27 • Page 11, • Page 9, line 1 lines 1–11 • Page 10, • Page 12, lines 27–28 lines 3–28 • Page 11, • Pages 13–16 lines 1–11 • Page 17, • Page 12, lines 1–21 lines 3–28 • Page 20, • Pages 13–16 lines 12–14, • Page 17, 18–22, 23–27 lines 1–21 • Page 22, • Page 20, lines 14–22 lines 12–14, • Page 23, 18–22, 23–27 lines 15–27. • Page 22, lines 14–22 1 Document Portions Sought to Decl. ISO Sealing Be Sealed 2 lines 15-27. 3 DENIED as to all other portions, as 4 without evidentiary 5 support from a declaration. 6 ECF No. 78-1, Entire document. Rubino Decl., GRANTED, as Ex. 11, 30(b)(6) ECF No. 79 at 2. ECF No. 87 at 4. confidential business, 7 Deposition Transcript financial, and of Thomas Meriam, licensing information 8 dated March 22, 2022 of AGIS Software. 9 Il. ORDER 10 Wl For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: b 1. Lyft’s administrative motions to consider whether another party’s material should be
B sealed are GRANTED IN PART, per the above; and
4 2. Lyft SHALL file newly redacted versions of ECF No. 75-1, Ex. 10; ECF No. 78-1,
15 Ex. 1; and ECF No. 78-1, Ex. 7, per the above, on or before April 13, 2022. 16 Dated: April 7, 2022 it Nt oo 18 BETH LABSON FREEMAN 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28