Lyft, Inc. v. AGIS Software Development LLC

Opinion

1 2 6 7 LYFT, INC., Case No. 21-cv-04653-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF 9 v. LYFT, INC.’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER 10 AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC, ANOTHER PARTY’S MATERIAL et al., SHOULD BE SEALED 11 Defendants. [Re: ECF No. 139] 12 13 Before the Court is Lyft, Inc.’s (“Lyft”) Administrative Motion to Consider Whether 14 Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed regarding redactions in its First Amended Complaint. 15 See ECF No. 139. The Court previously granted Lyft’s sealing motion as to the same redacted 16 material when Lyft sought to file a redacted version of the First Amended Complaint as an exhibit 17 to its Motion to File First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 78). See Order, ECF No. 91 at 4–5. Lyft’s 18 previous sealing motion was supported by a declaration from AGIS Software Development LLC’s 19 (“AGIS Software”) counsel. See Rubino Decl., ECF No. 87. The Court found that there was “good 20 cause” for sealing the redacted information, since it was “confidential business, financial, and 21 licensing information of AGIS Software[.]” See Order, ECF No. 91 at 4. Now, Lyft moves to seal 22 the same information. 23 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and 24 documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 25 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 26 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are “more than 27 tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling 1 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing 2 of “good cause.” Jd. at 1097. 3 Since the information at issue is contained within Lyft’s operative complaint, the Court finds 4 that the “compelling reasons” standard applies to Lyft’s administrative motion, since Lyft’s 5 operative complaint is “more than tangentially related to the merits of [the] case.” See Ctr. for Auto 6 Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101-02. The Court finds that there are compelling reasons for sealing the 7 proposed redacted information in Lyft’s First Amended Complaint. See Rubino Decl., ECF No. 87 8 (redacted portions contain “confidential financial information,” “highly confidential 9 settlement licenses and negotiations with third parties,” and “information regarding the corporate 10 structure and contents of agreements between business entities,” the public filing of which could 11 cause competitive harm to AGIS Software and third parties); In re Electronic Arts, 12 298 Fed.Appx. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding compelling reasons for sealing “business 5 13 information that might harm a litigant’s competitive strategy”); Nicolosi Distributing, Inc. v. 14 Finishmaster, Inc., No. 18—cv—03587-BLF, 2018 WL 10758114, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2018) 3 15 (“[C]ompelling reasons exist [to seal three contracts] because they contain proprietary and 16 confidential business information, including potential trade secrets and business practices, such as 3 17 product rates and purchase requirements.”); In re Google Location Hist. Litig., 514 F.Supp.3d 1147, 18 1162 (N.D. Cal. 2021); see also Order, ECF No. 144. 19 Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Lyft’s administrative motion. 20 21 Dated: June 7, 2022 kom Lh han tn) 22 BETH LABSON FREEMAN 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28