1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 SAN JOSE DIVISION 4 WERIDE CORP., et al., 5 Case No. 5:18-cv-07233-EJD Plaintiffs, 6 ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE v. MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL 7 KUN HUANG, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 184, 186, 189, 199, 209, 216, 8 Defendants. 217, 218, 258, 303 9
10 The parties have filed administrative motions to file under seal in connection with 11 WeRide’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, the Second Amended Complaint, 12 Defendant Huang’s Answer, and the Motion to Modify the Preliminary Injunction. Having 13 considered the parties’ papers, the materials sought to be sealed and the law, the court now 14 addresses these motions. 15 U.S. courts recognize that the public has “a general right to inspect and copy public records 16 and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Whitewater W. Indus., Ltd. v. Pac. 17 Surf Designs, Inc., 2019 WL 1590470, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2019) (quoting Nixon v. Warner 18 Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). “When considering a sealing request, ‘a strong 19 presumption in favor of access is the starting point.’” Space Data Corp. v. Alphabet Inc., 2019 20 WL 2305278, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 30, 2019) (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 21 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). This right is not absolute though. Whitewater W. Indus., 2019 WL 1590470, at *1 (quoting 22 Nixon, 434 U.S. at 598). In order to seal judicial records that are “more than tangentially related to 23 the underlying cause of action,” the moving party must show “compelling reasons” that outweigh 24 the presumption in favor of disclosure. Space Data, 2019 WL 2305278, at *1 (citing Ctr. for Auto 25 Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016)). Courts applying the compelling 26 reasons standard have upheld the sealing of trade secrets, marketing strategies, product 27 1 development plans, detailed product-specific financial information, customer information, internal 2 reports and other such materials that could harm a party’s competitive standing. See, e.g., In re 3 Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008); Opperman v. Path, Inc., 2017 WL 4 1036652, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2017); Lucas v. Breg, Inc., 2016 WL 5464549, at *1 (S.D. Cal. 5 Sept. 28, 2016); Rodman v. Safeway Inc., 2015 WL 13673842 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2015). 6 To meet the compelling reasons standard, the moving party must provide “specific factual 7 findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Opperman, 2017 WL 1036652, at *1. “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific 8 examples of articulated reasoning” will not carry the compelling standards burden. Space Data, 9 2019 WL 2305278, at *1 (quoting Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th 10 Cir. 1992)). “There fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, 11 incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its 12 records.” Lucas, 2016 WL 5464549, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2016) (quoting Kamakana, 447 13 F.3d at 1179). Mere designation of a document as confidential under a protective order is not 14 sufficient to establish that said document, or portions thereof, are sealable. Civil L.R. 79- 15 5(d)(1)(A). 16 The court finds that the compelling reasons standard applies to all of the instant motions to 17 file under seal because their underlying subject matters are “more than tangentially” related to the 18 underlying cause of action. Space Data, 2019 WL 2305278, at *1; see also Ctr. for Auto Safety, 19 809 F.3d 1101. 20 I. Docket No. 209 21 WeRide’s Second Amended Complaint contains material designated as Confidential or 22 Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only by ZZX, AllRide, and Huang. ZZX and AllRide 23 filed a declaration in support of sealing portions of the designated material, but Huang did not. 24 Civil L.R. 79-5(e). The court finds that no material in the Second Amended Complaint warrants 25 sealing. The designating parties proposed sealing certain lines of paragraphs 128 and 129, but 26 those paragraphs concern the relationship between Huang, ZZX, and ZKA, which goes to the 27 allegations underlying the litigation. Accordingly, the Motion to File Under Seal Portions of the 1 Second Amended Complaint is denied in its entirety. 2 II. Docket No. 216 WeRide’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint contains material 3 designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only by ZZX, AllRide, and 4 Huang. ZZX and AllRide filed a declaration in support of sealing portions of the designated 5 material, but Huang did not. Civil L.R. 79-5(e). ZZX and AllRide only seek to seal portions of 6 Exhibit E and Exhibit I of the LaFond Declaration. The court denies the motion as to Exhibit E 7 because that material goes to the relationship between ZZX and AllRide, which concerns the 8 underlying allegations of the lawsuit. However, the court grants the motion as to Exhibit I page 9 32, lines 18 and 22 because ZZX and AllRide have shown compelling reasons for sealing. The 10 motion is otherwise denied. 11 III. Docket No. 217 12 WeRide’s Motion to Modify the Preliminary Injunction contains material designated as 13 Confidential or Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only by ZZX, AllRide, Huang and Wang. 14 ZZX, AllRide, and Wang filed declarations in support of sealing portions of the designated 15 material, but Huang did not. Civil L.R. 79-5(e). The court rules as follows: 16 Portions Sought to Be Filed Document Result Under Seal 17 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Yellow Denied. No designating party 18 Modify the Preliminary at 1:2-6 supports sealing this material. Injunction 19 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Yellow Denied. No designating party 20 Modify the Preliminary at 1:26-2:3 supports sealing this material. Injunction 21 22 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Blue at Denied. This material goes to the Modify the Preliminary 2:6-9 allegations underlying the lawsuit 23 Injunction and the designating parties have not shown a compelling interest 24 that outweighs the presumption in favor of disclosure. 25 26 27 Portions Sought to Be Filed 1 Document Result Under Seal 2 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Yellow Denied. No designating party Modify the Preliminary at 2:20-23 supports sealing this material. 3 Injunction 4 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Yellow Denied. No designating party Modify the Preliminary at 3:1-2 supports sealing this material. 5 Injunction 6 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Yellow Denied. No designating party 7 Modify the Preliminary at 3:3 supports sealing this material. Injunction 8 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Blue at Denied. This material goes to the 9 Modify the Preliminary 5:5-14 allegations underlying the lawsuit Injunction and the designating parties have 10 not shown a compelling interest 11 that outweighs the presumption in favor of disclosure. 12 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Blue at Denied. This material goes to the 13 Modify the Preliminary 5 n. 2 allegations underlying the lawsuit Injunction and the designating parties have 14 not shown a compelling interest 15 that outweighs the presumption in favor of disclosure. 16 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Yellow Granted as to 5:21-22 and 6:1; 17 Modify the Preliminary at 5:16-6:2 otherwise denied. Injunction 18 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Yellow Granted as to 6: 5-6; otherwise 19 Modify the Preliminary at 6:3-7:14 denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 SAN JOSE DIVISION 4 WERIDE CORP., et al., 5 Case No. 5:18-cv-07233-EJD Plaintiffs, 6 ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE v. MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL 7 KUN HUANG, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 184, 186, 189, 199, 209, 216, 8 Defendants. 217, 218, 258, 303 9
10 The parties have filed administrative motions to file under seal in connection with 11 WeRide’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, the Second Amended Complaint, 12 Defendant Huang’s Answer, and the Motion to Modify the Preliminary Injunction. Having 13 considered the parties’ papers, the materials sought to be sealed and the law, the court now 14 addresses these motions. 15 U.S. courts recognize that the public has “a general right to inspect and copy public records 16 and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Whitewater W. Indus., Ltd. v. Pac. 17 Surf Designs, Inc., 2019 WL 1590470, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2019) (quoting Nixon v. Warner 18 Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). “When considering a sealing request, ‘a strong 19 presumption in favor of access is the starting point.’” Space Data Corp. v. Alphabet Inc., 2019 20 WL 2305278, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 30, 2019) (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 21 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). This right is not absolute though. Whitewater W. Indus., 2019 WL 1590470, at *1 (quoting 22 Nixon, 434 U.S. at 598). In order to seal judicial records that are “more than tangentially related to 23 the underlying cause of action,” the moving party must show “compelling reasons” that outweigh 24 the presumption in favor of disclosure. Space Data, 2019 WL 2305278, at *1 (citing Ctr. for Auto 25 Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016)). Courts applying the compelling 26 reasons standard have upheld the sealing of trade secrets, marketing strategies, product 27 1 development plans, detailed product-specific financial information, customer information, internal 2 reports and other such materials that could harm a party’s competitive standing. See, e.g., In re 3 Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008); Opperman v. Path, Inc., 2017 WL 4 1036652, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2017); Lucas v. Breg, Inc., 2016 WL 5464549, at *1 (S.D. Cal. 5 Sept. 28, 2016); Rodman v. Safeway Inc., 2015 WL 13673842 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2015). 6 To meet the compelling reasons standard, the moving party must provide “specific factual 7 findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Opperman, 2017 WL 1036652, at *1. “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific 8 examples of articulated reasoning” will not carry the compelling standards burden. Space Data, 9 2019 WL 2305278, at *1 (quoting Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th 10 Cir. 1992)). “There fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, 11 incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its 12 records.” Lucas, 2016 WL 5464549, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2016) (quoting Kamakana, 447 13 F.3d at 1179). Mere designation of a document as confidential under a protective order is not 14 sufficient to establish that said document, or portions thereof, are sealable. Civil L.R. 79- 15 5(d)(1)(A). 16 The court finds that the compelling reasons standard applies to all of the instant motions to 17 file under seal because their underlying subject matters are “more than tangentially” related to the 18 underlying cause of action. Space Data, 2019 WL 2305278, at *1; see also Ctr. for Auto Safety, 19 809 F.3d 1101. 20 I. Docket No. 209 21 WeRide’s Second Amended Complaint contains material designated as Confidential or 22 Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only by ZZX, AllRide, and Huang. ZZX and AllRide 23 filed a declaration in support of sealing portions of the designated material, but Huang did not. 24 Civil L.R. 79-5(e). The court finds that no material in the Second Amended Complaint warrants 25 sealing. The designating parties proposed sealing certain lines of paragraphs 128 and 129, but 26 those paragraphs concern the relationship between Huang, ZZX, and ZKA, which goes to the 27 allegations underlying the litigation. Accordingly, the Motion to File Under Seal Portions of the 1 Second Amended Complaint is denied in its entirety. 2 II. Docket No. 216 WeRide’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint contains material 3 designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only by ZZX, AllRide, and 4 Huang. ZZX and AllRide filed a declaration in support of sealing portions of the designated 5 material, but Huang did not. Civil L.R. 79-5(e). ZZX and AllRide only seek to seal portions of 6 Exhibit E and Exhibit I of the LaFond Declaration. The court denies the motion as to Exhibit E 7 because that material goes to the relationship between ZZX and AllRide, which concerns the 8 underlying allegations of the lawsuit. However, the court grants the motion as to Exhibit I page 9 32, lines 18 and 22 because ZZX and AllRide have shown compelling reasons for sealing. The 10 motion is otherwise denied. 11 III. Docket No. 217 12 WeRide’s Motion to Modify the Preliminary Injunction contains material designated as 13 Confidential or Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only by ZZX, AllRide, Huang and Wang. 14 ZZX, AllRide, and Wang filed declarations in support of sealing portions of the designated 15 material, but Huang did not. Civil L.R. 79-5(e). The court rules as follows: 16 Portions Sought to Be Filed Document Result Under Seal 17 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Yellow Denied. No designating party 18 Modify the Preliminary at 1:2-6 supports sealing this material. Injunction 19 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Yellow Denied. No designating party 20 Modify the Preliminary at 1:26-2:3 supports sealing this material. Injunction 21 22 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Blue at Denied. This material goes to the Modify the Preliminary 2:6-9 allegations underlying the lawsuit 23 Injunction and the designating parties have not shown a compelling interest 24 that outweighs the presumption in favor of disclosure. 25 26 27 Portions Sought to Be Filed 1 Document Result Under Seal 2 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Yellow Denied. No designating party Modify the Preliminary at 2:20-23 supports sealing this material. 3 Injunction 4 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Yellow Denied. No designating party Modify the Preliminary at 3:1-2 supports sealing this material. 5 Injunction 6 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Yellow Denied. No designating party 7 Modify the Preliminary at 3:3 supports sealing this material. Injunction 8 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Blue at Denied. This material goes to the 9 Modify the Preliminary 5:5-14 allegations underlying the lawsuit Injunction and the designating parties have 10 not shown a compelling interest 11 that outweighs the presumption in favor of disclosure. 12 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Blue at Denied. This material goes to the 13 Modify the Preliminary 5 n. 2 allegations underlying the lawsuit Injunction and the designating parties have 14 not shown a compelling interest 15 that outweighs the presumption in favor of disclosure. 16 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Yellow Granted as to 5:21-22 and 6:1; 17 Modify the Preliminary at 5:16-6:2 otherwise denied. Injunction 18 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Yellow Granted as to 6: 5-6; otherwise 19 Modify the Preliminary at 6:3-7:14 denied. 20 Injunction 21 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Blue at Denied. This material goes to the Modify the Preliminary 7:14-17 allegations underlying the lawsuit 22 Injunction and the designating parties have not shown a compelling interest 23 that outweighs the presumption in 24 favor of disclosure. 25 26 27 Portions Sought to Be Filed 1 Document Result Under Seal 2 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Blue at Denied. This material goes to the Modify the Preliminary 7:25-26 allegations underlying the lawsuit 3 Injunction and the designating parties have not shown a compelling interest 4 that outweighs the presumption in favor of disclosure. 5 6 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Yellow Denied. No designating party Modify the Preliminary at 8:13 supports sealing this material. 7 Injunction 8 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Blue at Denied. This material goes to the Modify the Preliminary 8 n. 7 allegations underlying the lawsuit 9 Injunction and the designating parties have not shown a compelling interest 10 that outweighs the presumption in 11 favor of disclosure. 12 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Yellow Denied. No designating party Modify the Preliminary at 9:5-18 supports sealing this material. 13 Injunction 14 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Yellow Denied. No designating party 15 Modify the Preliminary at 9:25-10:24 supports sealing this material. Injunction 16 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Yellow Denied. This material goes to the 17 Modify the Preliminary at 11:1-8 allegations underlying the lawsuit Injunction and the designating parties have 18 not shown a compelling interest 19 that outweighs the presumption in favor of disclosure. 20 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Yellow Denied. This material goes to the 21 Modify the Preliminary at 11:9-17 allegations underlying the lawsuit Injunction and the designating parties have 22 not shown a compelling interest 23 that outweighs the presumption in favor of disclosure. 24 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Yellow Denied. No designating party 25 Modify the Preliminary at 12:15-20 supports sealing this material. Injunction 26 27 Portions Sought to Be Filed 1 Document Result Under Seal 2 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Yellow Denied. No designating party Modify the Preliminary at 13:3-24 supports sealing this material. 3 Injunction 4 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Yellow Denied. No designating party Modify the Preliminary at 14:9-18 supports sealing this material. 5 Injunction 6 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Yellow Denied. This material goes to the 7 Modify the Preliminary at 15:2-3 & n. 9 allegations underlying the lawsuit Injunction and the designating parties have 8 not shown a compelling interest that outweighs the presumption in 9 favor of disclosure. 10 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Yellow Denied. No designating party 11 Modify the Preliminary at 15:9-10 supports sealing this material. Injunction 12 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Yellow Denied. No designating party 13 Modify the Preliminary at 17:7-14 supports sealing this material. Injunction 14 15 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Blue at Denied. This material goes to the Modify the Preliminary 17:23 allegations underlying the lawsuit 16 Injunction and the designating parties have not shown a compelling interest 17 that outweighs the presumption in favor of disclosure. 18 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Yellow Denied. No designating party 19 Modify the Preliminary at 18:1-3 supports sealing this material. 20 Injunction 21 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Yellow Denied. No designating party Modify the Preliminary at 20:5-7 supports sealing this material. 22 Injunction 23 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Yellow Denied. No designating party 24 Modify the Preliminary at 20:24-21:2 supports sealing this material. Injunction 25 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Yellow Granted as to page 22: 2; 26 Modify the Preliminary at 21:14-23:6 otherwise denied. Injunction 27 Portions Sought to Be Filed 1 Document Result Under Seal 2 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Yellow Denied. No designating party Modify the Preliminary at 23:24 supports sealing this material. 3 Injunction 4 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Yellow Denied. No designating party Modify the Preliminary at 25:15-16 supports sealing this material. 5 Injunction 6 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Yellow Denied. This material goes to the 7 Modify the Preliminary in Appendix A allegations underlying the lawsuit Injunction and the designating parties have 8 not shown a compelling interest that outweighs the presumption in 9 favor of disclosure. 10 WeRide’s Motion to Portions Highlighted in Blue in Denied. This material goes to the 11 Modify the Preliminary Appendix A allegations underlying the lawsuit Injunction and the designating parties have 12 not shown a compelling interest that outweighs the presumption in 13 favor of disclosure. 14 Declaration of Dr. Portions Highlighted in Yellow Granted as to the limitations 15 Matthew R. Walter proposed by ZZX and AllRide in § 14 of Dkt. No. 172. 16 Declaration of Ryan S. Portions Highlighted in Yellow Granted as to page 5:16-17, 19-22, 17 Landes otherwise denied. 18 Exhibit 4 to Landes The entire document Granted as to the limitations proposed by ZZX and AllRide in 19 § 4 of Dkt. No. 172. 20 Exhibit 5 to Landes The entire document Denied. No designating party 21 supports sealing this material. 22 Exhibit 6 to Landes The entire document Granted as to the limitations proposed by ZZX and AllRide in 23 § 5 of Dkt. No. 172. 24 Exhibit 7 to Landes The entire document Denied. No designating party 25 supports sealing this material. 26 Exhibit 8 to Landes The entire document Denied. No designating party supports sealing this material. 27 Portions Sought to Be Filed 1 Document Result Under Seal 2 Exhibit 9 to Landes The entire document Denied. This material goes to the allegations underlying the lawsuit 3 and the designating parties have not shown a compelling interest 4 that outweighs the presumption in favor of disclosure. 5 6 Exhibit 10 to Landes The entire document Denied. No designating party supports sealing this material. 7 Exhibit 11 to Landes The entire document Granted as to the limitations 8 proposed by ZZX and AllRide in § 7 of Dkt. No. 172. 9 Exhibit 12 to Landes The entire document Denied. No designating party 10 supports sealing this material. 11 Exhibit 13 to Landes The entire document Denied. This material goes to the 12 allegations underlying the lawsuit and the designating parties have 13 not shown a compelling interest that outweighs the presumption in 14 favor of disclosure. 15 Exhibit 14 to Landes The entire document Denied. No designating party 16 supports sealing this material. 17 Exhibit 15 to Landes The entire document Denied. No designating party supports sealing this material. 18 Exhibit 16 to Landes The entire document Denied. No designating party 19 supports sealing this material. 20 Exhibit 17 to Landes The entire document Denied. No designating party 21 supports sealing this material. 22 Exhibit 18 to Landes The entire document Denied. No designating party supports sealing this material. 23 Exhibit 19 to Landes The entire document Denied. No designating party 24 supports sealing this material. 25 Exhibit 20 to Landes The entire document Denied. No designating party 26 supports sealing this material. 27 Portions Sought to Be Filed 1 Document Result Under Seal 2 Exhibit 21 to Landes The entire document Denied. No designating party supports sealing this material. 3 Exhibit 22 to Landes The entire document Denied. No designating party 4 supports sealing this material. 5 Exhibit 23 to Landes The entire document Denied. No designating party supports sealing this material. 6 7 Exhibit 24 to Landes The entire document Denied. This material goes to the allegations underlying the lawsuit 8 and the designating parties have not shown a compelling interest 9 that outweighs the presumption in favor of disclosure. 10 11 Exhibit 30 to Landes The entire document Denied. No designating party supports sealing this material. 12 Exhibit 33 to Landes The entire document Denied without prejudice. The 13 parties are ordered to meet and confer in good faith so that 14 WeRide submits only relevant 15 excerpts of the deposition and the designating parties propose 16 narrowly tailored redactions only of material that meets the 17 compelling reasons standard. The parties may file an amended 18 motion to seal this material within 19 seven days of the date of this order. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Portions Sought to Be Filed 1 Document Result Under Seal 2 Exhibit 34 to Landes The entire document Denied without prejudice. The parties are ordered to meet and 3 confer in good faith so that WeRide submits only relevant 4 excerpts of the deposition and the designating parties propose 5 narrowly tailored redactions only 6 of material that meets the compelling reasons standard. The 7 parties may file an amended motion to seal this material within 8 seven days of the date of this order. 9 10 Exhibit 35 to Landes The entire document Denied without prejudice. The parties are ordered to meet and 11 confer in good faith so that WeRide submits only relevant 12 excerpts of the deposition and the designating parties propose 13 narrowly tailored redactions only 14 of material that meets the compelling reasons standard. The 15 parties may file an amended motion to seal this material within 16 seven days of the date of this order. 17 18 Exhibit 36 to Landes The entire document Granted. The designating party has shown a compelling reason for 19 sealing this material. 20 Exhibit 37 to Landes The entire document Denied. No designating party supports sealing this material. 21 Exhibit 38 to Landes The entire document Granted. The designating party 22 has shown a compelling reason for 23 sealing this material. 24 25 26 27 Portions Sought to Be Filed 1 Document Result Under Seal 2 Exhibit 39 to Landes The entire document Denied. This material goes to the allegations underlying the lawsuit 3 and the designating parties have not shown a compelling interest 4 that outweighs the presumption in favor of disclosure. 5 6 Exhibit 40 to Landes The entire document Denied. This material goes to the allegations underlying the lawsuit 7 and the designating parties have not shown a compelling interest 8 that outweighs the presumption in favor of disclosure. 9 Exhibit 41 to Landes The entire document Denied. This material goes to the 10 allegations underlying the lawsuit 11 and the designating parties have not shown a compelling interest 12 that outweighs the presumption in favor of disclosure. 13 Exhibit 42 to Landes The entire document Denied. This material goes to the 14 allegations underlying the lawsuit 15 and the designating parties have not shown a compelling interest 16 that outweighs the presumption in favor of disclosure. 17 Exhibit 53 to Landes The entire document Granted as to the limitations 18 proposed by ZZX and AllRide in 19 § 13 of Dkt. No. 172. 20 Exhibit 56 to Landes The entire document Denied. No designating party supports sealing this material. 21 Exhibit 59 to Landes The entire document Denied. No designating party 22 supports sealing this material. 23 IV. Docket No. 218 24 WeRide’s Motion to Shorten Time contains material designated as Confidential or Highly 25 Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only by ZZX and AllRide. However, the materials at issue go to 26 the allegations underlying the lawsuit and the designating parties have not shown a compelling 27 ] interest that outweighs the presumption in favor of disclosure. The motion is denied. 2 V. Docket Nos. 184, 186, 189, 199, 258, and 303 3 Docket Nos. 184, 186, 189, 199, 258, and 303 all fail to comply with Civil Local Rule 5- 4 1(g), which requires the moving party to email a Microsoft word version of its proposed order to 5 || EJDpo@cand.uscourts.gov, and/or with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(B), which requires the 6 || proposed order to “list[] in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be 7 || sealed.” The court therefore denies these motions without prejudice. The parties may file 8 compliant administrative motion to file under seal within seven days of this order. 9 The newly-filed motions shall incorporate the court’s previous rulings on administrative 10 || motions to file under seal, so that they do not seek to seal material for which the court has already 11 denied a motion to file under seal. If the parties seek to seal material for which the court has 12 || already granted an administrative motion to file under seal, the newly-filed motion shall reference 13 || the docket number and page number of the court’s prior sealing order. The court further orders 14 || that all materials filed in connection with an administrative motion to file under seal must cite the 3 15 || material sought to be sealed by the specific page and line numbers in the underlying document; 16 || general references to highlighted material will not suffice. 17 IT ISSO ORDERED. Z 18 Dated: October 7, 2019 19 EDWARD J. DAVILA 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 || Case No.: 5:18-cv-07233-EJD ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL