X One, Inc. v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: October 16, 2019
• Docket: 5:16-cv-06050
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11

12 X ONE, INC., Case No.16-cv-06050-LHK

13 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 14 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 15 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Re: Dkt. Nos. 279, 282 16 Defendant. 17 18 On October 3, 2019, Plaintiff X One, Inc. filed an administrative motion to file under seal 19 Plaintiff’s Request for Reconsideration, Further Objections and Notice of Second Patent Claim 20 Reduction. ECF No. 279. On October 15, 2019, the Court denied the administrative motion to 21 file under seal. ECF No. 283. However, this denial was made in error, without considering the 22 declaration in support of sealing filed by Defendant Uber Technologies on October 7, 2019. ECF 23 No. 282. The Court now GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the administrative motion to file 24 under seal. 25 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 26 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 27 1 1 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 2 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Thus, when considering a sealing request, “a strong presumption in 3 favor of access is the starting point.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 4 Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of 5 overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that 6 outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana, 7 447 F.3d at 1178–79 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Compelling reasons 8 justifying the sealing of court records generally exist “when such ‘court files might have become a 9 vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public 10 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 11 U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s 12 embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the 13 court to seal its records.” Id. 14 By contrast, records attached to non-dispositive motions generally are not subject to the 15 strong presumption of access, provided those motions are “not related, or only tangentially related, 16 to the merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 17 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive 18 motions because those documents are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the 19 underlying cause of action.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Parties moving to 20 seal records attached to motions unrelated or only tangentially related to the merits of a case need 21 only meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 22 Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1098–99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80. 23 In addition, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established 24 by Civil Local Rule 79-5. Pursuant to that rule, a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request 25 that establishes the document is “sealable,” or “privileged, protectable as a trade secret or 26 otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). “The request must be narrowly 27 2 1 tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Id. 2 Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), in turn, requires the submitting party to attach a “declaration 3 establishing that the document sought to be filed under seal, or portions thereof, are sealable,” a 4 “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material,” and a proposed order 5 that “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” as well as 6 an “unredacted version of the document” that “indicate[s], by highlighting or other clear method, 7 the portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted version.” Id. 8 The first question before the Court is whether the instant motion to seal is subject to the 9 good cause or compelling reasons standard. Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s Request for 10 Reconsideration, Further Objections and Notice of Second Patent Claim Reduction is a non- 11 dispositive filing, and the Court agrees. The Request for Reconsideration, Further Objections and 12 Notice of Second Patent Claim Reduction concerns the Court’s case narrowing order, and not to 13 the merits of the case. A “good cause” showing is therefore sufficient to support sealing. 14 “Compelling reasons”—and a fortiori, “good cause”—exist when the publication of court 15 files “could result in infringement upon trade secrets.” Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 16 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011). The Ninth Circuit has adopted the definition of “trade secrets” set 17 forth in the Restatement of Torts: “A trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or 18 compilation of information which is used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to 19 obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it.” Clark v. Bunker, 453 F.2d 20 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1972) (quoting Restatement (First) of Torts § 757 cmt. b). “Generally [a 21 trade secret] relates to the production of goods. . . . It may, however, relate to the sale of goods or 22 to other operations in the business. . . .” Id. (ellipses in original). In addition, the U.S. Supreme 23 Court has recognized that sealing may be justified to prevent judicial documents from being used 24 “as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 25 U.S. at 598. 26 Defendant contends that the redacted portions of the Request for Reconsideration, Further 27 3 1 Objections and Notice of Second Patent Claim Reduction contain confidential information about 2 the “functionality and operation of Uber’s applications.” ECF No. 282 ¶ 2. Having reviewed the 3 information to be redacted, the Court agrees that much of the information reveals insights into the 4 technical operation of Uber’s applications, and that disclosure of this information would harm 5 Uber’s competitive standing in the ride-sharing industry. The applications are, in essence, the 6 “goods” that Uber “produces,” which makes information about their technical operation a “trade 7 secret.” See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 747 F. App’x at 466 (9th Cir. 2018) (finding “information 8 concerning the vehicles’ design and development details” to be trade secrets). Therefore, “good 9 cause” for sealing exists. 10 For the foregoing reasons, the Court rules on the instant motion as follows: 11 Document Page/Line Ruling 12 Request for Reconsideration, Page 2, lines 15-16 GRANTED. Further Objections and Notice of 13 Second Patent Claim Reduction Request for Reconsideration, Page 2, lines 20-21 DENIED. The information 14 Further Objections and Notice of Defendant seeks to seal is publicly 15 Second Patent Claim Reduction disclosed in the preceding sentence, e.g., “Uber receives maps from 16 multiple third-party providers.” Request for Reconsideration, Page 2, lines 27-28 GRANTED. 17 Further Objections and Notice of Second Patent Claim Reduction 18 Request for Reconsideration, Page 3, lines 5-6 GRANTED. 19 Further Objections and Notice of Second Patent Claim Reduction 20 Request for Reconsideration, Page 3, lines 5-6 GRANTED. Further Objections and Notice of 21 Second Patent Claim Reduction 22 Plaintiff shall file its Request for Reconsideration, Further Objections and Notice of 23 Second Patent Claim Reduction in accordance with this order by October 22, 2019. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: October 16, 2019 27 4 1 J ey K ° bh LUCY H. KOH 2 United States District Judge 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 16-cv-06050-LHK ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER