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

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 RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL 14 v.

15 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

16 Defendant. 17 18 Before the Court are the parties’ sealing motions filed in connection with their motions to 19 strike, ECF Nos. 249, 257, 260, 268, 271, 276; sealing motions filed in connection with their 20 Daubert motions to exclude expert evidence, ECF Nos. 291, 296, 300, 314, 318, 320, 332, 334; 21 and sealing motions filed in connection with their motions for summary judgment, ECF Nos. 293, 22 298, 322, 337. 23 I. LEGAL STANDARD 24 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 25 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 26 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 27 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). As the Ninth Circuit has explained, this is a “common law right,” 1 United States v. Doe, 870 F.3d 991, 996 (9th Cir. 2017), reflecting the American judicial system’s 2 longstanding commitment to “the open courtroom,” Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 1025 3 (9th Cir. 2014). The public policy favoring public access to judicial proceedings applies equally 4 to court records because “court records often provide important, sometimes the only, bases or 5 explanations for a court’s decision.” Id. Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a 6 strong presumption in favor of access” is generally a court’s “starting point.” United States v. Bus. 7 of Custer Battlefield Museum & Store Located at Interstate 90, Exit 514, S. of Billings, Mont., 658 8 F.3d 1188, 1194 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). That presumption can be 9 overcome only by a showing of a “compelling reason,” that “outweighs the general history of 10 access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. at 1194–95. 11 “Despite this strong preference for public access,” the Ninth Circuit has “carved out an 12 exception” for certain court filings. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 13 1097 (9th Cir. 2016). Specifically, filings that are not “more than tangentially related to the 14 merits of a case” need only satisfy the “less exacting” “good cause” standard of Federal Rule of 15 Civil Procedure 26(c). Id. at 1097, 1102. The Ninth Circuit has explained that the rationale 16 underlying the “good cause” standard is that “the public has less of a need for access to court 17 records” that “are unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” 18 Oliner, 745 F.3d at 1026. 19 II. SEALING MOTIONS FILED IN CONNECTION WITH MOTIONS THE COURT DENIED AS MOOT 20 In the Court’s February 11, 2020 order granting summary judgment of noninfringement in 21 favor of Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”), the Court denied the parties’ three motions 22 to strike, the parties’ three Daubert motions, and Plaintiff X One, Inc.’s (“X One”) motion for 23 summary judgment of validity as moot. See ECF No. 350. Because the Court did not decide those 24 motions, the Court hereby GRANTS the corresponding motions to seal: ECF Nos. 249, 257, 260, 25 268, 271, 276, 291, 293, 296, 300, 314, 318, 320, 332, 334. The documents that the moving 26 parties provisionally filed under seal at the docket entries listed above shall remain under seal. 27 III. SEALING MOTIONS FILED IN CONNECTION WITH UBER’S MOTION FOR 1 SUMMARY JUDGMENT 2 By contrast, the Court decided Uber’s motion for summary judgment on the merits. The 3 Court thus considers in turn each of the motions to seal filed in connection with Uber’s motion for 4 summary judgment: 5 A. ECF No. 298, Uber’s Motion to Seal in Connection with its Motion for Summary Judgment 6 In connection with its motion for summary judgment, Uber filed an administrative motion 7 to seal, wherein Uber seeks to seal limited portions of its brief and corresponding exhibits. ECF 8 No. 298. The information Uber seeks to seal falls into two categories. First, Uber moves to seal 9 information relating to the technical functionality of Uber’s products, which Uber argues could 10 allow competitors to learn the “operation and functionality of Uber’s technical capabilities” and 11 “harm Uber’s competitive standing in the ride–sharing industry.” ECF No. 289–1 at 1. Second, 12 Uber moves to seal information identifying Uber’s licensors pursuant to confidential license 13 agreements. The Court agrees that compelling reasons exist to seal this information. See, e.g., 14 FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 17–CV–220–LHK, 2019 WL 95922, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019) 15 (granting motion to seal under the compelling to the extent it may harm the party or third parties’ 16 “competitive standing and divulges terms of confidential contracts, contract negotiations, or trade 17 secrets.”). Furthermore, the parties’ request is narrowly tailored because the requested sealing 18 includes only those categories of information. Accordingly, Uber’s motion to seal, ECF No, 298, 19 is GRANTED. The documents that the moving parties provisionally filed under seal at the docket 20 entries listed above shall remain under seal. 21 B. ECF No. 322, X One’s Motion to Seal in Connection with its Opposition 22 X One filed an administrative motion to seal in connection with its opposition to Uber’s 23 motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 322. Pursuant to the parties’ Protective Order, ECF No. 24 54, X One seeks to seal information marked as highly confidential by Uber. Uber filed a 25 declaration in support of X One’s motion to seal Uber’s confidential documents and filed revised 26 unredacted exhibits. See ECF No. 329 (“Liu Decl.”). 27 1 As an initial matter, X One’s sealing motion was overbroad in that X One sought to seal 2 entire documents marked confidential by Uber, and Uber’s declaration subsequently narrowed the 3 information sought to sealed.1 As a result, the Court DENIES with prejudice those portions of X 4 One’s exhibits that Uber does not seek to seal. See Liu Decl. As Uber explains, the information 5 Uber seeks to seal falls into three categories, which the Court considers in turn below. 6 1. Financial and Business Information 7 First, the parties seek to file under seal information regarding Uber’s financial and business 8 information, including information relating to pricing and business strategies. The Court agrees 9 that this information is sealable. See, e.g., Krieger v. Atheros Commc’ns, Inc., No. 11–CV–640– 10 LHK, 2011 WL 2550831, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 25, 2011) (finding information regarding party’s 11 “long–term financial projections, discussions of business strategy, and competitive analyses” 12 sealable under the compelling reasons standard). 13 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part the motion to seal as follows: 14 Document Portion(s) of Documents Ruling 15 Jacob Schroeder Decl., Ex. 9 Highlighted portions of pages 117–19, 123 29, [322-6] 153–64, 182–89, 199–213, 215–22, 224, 227, GRANTED 16 and 230. Jacob Schroeder Decl., Ex. Highlighted portions of pages 50, 52, 68–71, 17 10 [322-7] 73, 96–98, 121–23, 159, and 183–89. GRANTED 18 Jacob Schroeder Decl., Ex. Highlighted portions of pages 25–26, 32–36, 19 11 [322-8] 38–41, 67–71, 110–11, 114–15, and 129–33. GRANTED 20 Jacob Schroeder Decl., Ex. Highlighted portions of pages 25–26, 32–36, 13 [322-10] 38–41, 67–71, 110–11, 114–15, and 129–33. GRANTED 21 22 23 1 Further, X One’s motion to seal failed to comply with Local Rule 79-5 because it did not 24 highlight or otherwise indicate in the unredacted versions of its documents the information sought to be sealed, e.g., in its opposition brief. See Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(D). Nor did X One’s 25 proposed sealing orders “list[] in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed. In fact, the Court previously explicitly directed the parties to this Local Rule in its 26 October 16, 2020 Order on X One’s prior sealing motion. ECF No. 285 at 3. The Court admonishes X One to ensure that it complies with the Court’s local rules on filing under seal for 27 any such future sealing requests. Jacob Schroeder Decl., Ex. Entire document. 1 16 [322-13] GRANTED 2 Jacob Schroeder Decl., Ex. Entire document. 3 20 [322-17] GRANTED 4 2. Confidential Licensing Information 5 Second, the parties seek to seal information identifying Uber’s licensors pursuant to 6 confidential license agreements. Court agrees that this information is sealable. See, e.g., 7 Qualcomm Inc., 2019 WL 95922, at *3 (granting motion to seal under the compelling to the extent 8 it may harm the party or third parties’ “competitive standing and divulges terms of confidential 9 contracts, contract negotiations, or trade secrets”). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part the 10 motion to seal as follows: 11 Document Portion(s) of Documents Ruling 12 X One’s Opposition to Highlighted portions of pages 4–5 and 16–18. 13 Uber’s Motion for GRANTED Summary Judgment 14 [322-3] 15 Jacob Schroeder Decl., Highlighted portions of pages 52–60, 62, 65–67, Ex. 1 [322-4] 69–71, 73, 83–87, 131, 135, and 142–46. GRANTED 16 Orange highlighted portions of pages 146 and 147. 17 Jacob Schroeder Decl., Highlighted portions of pages 21 and 22. GRANTED Ex. 2 [322-5] 18 Jacob Schroeder Decl., Highlighted portions of pages 18–19, 22, 37– 19 Ex. 9 [322-6] 44, 46–47, 53–57, 71, 80, 139, 155–62, 178–80, GRANTED 183–85, 221–22, and 226. 20 Jacob Schroeder Decl., Highlighted portions of pages 38, 40, 42, 70–74, 21 Ex. 11 [322-8] 95–99, 199, and 225–26. GRANTED 22 Jacob Schroeder Decl., Highlighted portions of pages 27–30, 36–38, 46– Ex. 13 [322-10] 49, 53–54, 74–75, 84–87, 96, 116, 118, and 142. GRANTED 23 24 3. Technical Information 25 Third, the parties seek to seal information “proprietary to Uber regarding the functionality 26 and operation of Uber’s products, including information relating to Uber’s source code.” Liu 27 1 Decl. ¶ 11. The Court generally agrees that this type of information is sealable. See, e.g., Finjan, 2 Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13–CV–05808–HSG, 2016 WL 7429304, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 3 2016) (granting request to seal portions of exhibits containing information about technical 4 operation of products). 5 However, the Court DENIES with prejudice Uber’s request to seal references to the 6 “session ID” identifier in X One’s opposition brief. As an initial matter, the Court finds that Uber 7 has failed to substantiate its request to seal this information with compelling reasons. Uber 8 conclusorily asserts that disclosure of this information “could allow Uber’s competitors in the 9 ride–sharing industry to glean insight into the operation and functionality of Uber’s technical 10 capabilities.” Liu Decl. at ¶¶ 11–12. Uber also states that “[s]ome of the information listed could 11 also threaten data security and lead to other competitive harm if disclosed.” Id. at ¶ 13. The Court 12 finds that Uber’s generalized assertions that the existence of the session ID could be leveraged by 13 competition or could have a data security impact is unsubstantiated and does not rise to the level 14 of compelling. 15 On the other hand, the arguments about the session ID go to the core of the parties’ 16 arguments regarding noninfringement of the ’647 Patent and are thus critical to the Court’s 17 analysis and disposition. See ECF No. 350. Accordingly, weighing the importance of the session 18 ID in Uber’s motion for summary judgment against the generalized reasons provided by Uber, the 19 Court DENIES with prejudice Uber’s request to seal the references to the “session ID” identifier 20 to the extent they are discussed in X One’s opposition brief. 21 Accordingly, the Court rules as follows: 22 Document Portion(s) of Documents Ruling 23 X One’s Opposition to Highlighted portions of pages i, 1–4, 9–13, DENIED with 24 Uber’s Motion for Summary and 20. prejudice Judgment [322-3] 25 Jacob Schroeder Decl., Highlighted portions of pages 14–16, 19–26, Ex. 1 [322-4] 28–41, 44, 50–51, 54, 56–58, 62, 82, 93–95, GRANTED 26 148–52, 191–92, 195, 199–204, 206, and 212. 27 1 Jacob Schroeder Decl., Ex. 2 Highlighted portions of pages 21 and 22. GRANTED [322-5] 2 Jacob Schroeder Decl., Ex. 9 Highlighted portions of pages 18–19, 28–32, 3 [322-6] 34–35, 39–42, 45–52, 59–71, 74, 77–85, 89– GRANTED 97, 99–121, 123–42, 144–63, 165,169, 172–79, 4 190–99, and 229–31. 5 Jacob Schroeder Decl., Ex. Highlighted portions of pages 5, 17–30, 32– GRANTED 10 [322-7] 35, 39–42, 45–49, 53–62, 69–72, 74–78, 6 80–82, 84–95, 99–102, 104–13, 115–16, 7 119–20, 127–53, 156–81, 185–93, 195–96, and 198–201. 8 Jacob Schroeder Decl., Ex. Highlighted portions of pages 3, 11, 26, 30, GRANTED 9 11 [322-8] 32–79, 81–85, 87–113, 115–34, 142–48, 150–57, 162–82, 184–88, 190–96, 199– 10 208, 211–45, and 253–60. 11 Jacob Schroeder Decl., Ex. Highlighted portions of pages 13–14, 16, GRANTED 12 [322-9] 19–21, 23, 26–38, 41–69, 73–86, 87–106, 12 108–16, 120–49, 154–58, 162, 164–65, 167–72, 174–77, 179–86, 189, 191–93, 13 195–99, 201–06, 209–22, and 224–26. 14 Jacob Schroeder Decl., Ex. Highlighted portions of pages 4–5, 10–11, 18– 13 [322-10] 19, 23–26, 30–36, 38–41, 44–71, 73–84, 88– GRANTED 15 105, 107–113, 116–121, 123–134, and 139– 145. 16 Jacob Schroeder Decl., Ex. Entire document. 17 14 [322-11] GRANTED 18 Jacob Schroeder Decl., Ex. Entire document. GRANTED 19 15 [322-12] 20 Jacob Schroeder Decl., Ex. Entire document. 16 [322-13] GRANTED 21 22 Jacob Schroeder Decl., Ex. Entire document. GRANTED 18 [322-15] 23 Jacob Schroeder Decl., Ex. Entire document. 24 19 [322-16] GRANTED 25 Jacob Schroeder Decl., Ex. Entire document. 20 [322-17] GRANTED 26 27 1 Jacob Schroeder Decl., Ex. Entire document. GRANTED 21 [322-18] 2 Jacob Schroeder Decl., Highlighted portions of pages 9, 14–18, 23– 3 Ex. 22 [322-19] 27, 31–34, 55, 56, 58, 60, 63, and 65. GRANTED 4 C. ECF No. 337, Uber’s Motion to Seal in Connection with its Reply 5 Finally, in connection with Uber’s reply, Uber seeks to seal the same “session ID” 6 references discussed above. Uber provides the same justification for sealing this information: that 7 disclosure of the session ID information “could allow Ubers competitors in the ride-sharing 8 industry to glean insight into the technical operation of Uber’s applications.” ECF No. 337-1 at ¶ 9 3. 10 As discussed above, supra Section III.B, the Court finds that Uber’s conclusory assertion 11 of potential competitive harm is insufficiently compelling to warrant sealing information critical to 12 the parties’ noninfringement dispute and that forms the basis of the Court’s infringement analysis. 13 See ECF No. 350. Accordingly, the DENIES with prejudice Uber’s request to seal its reply brief, 14 ECF No. 337. 15 IV. CONCLUSION 16 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the parties’ sealing motions filed in 17 connection with motions that the Court has denied as moot. ECF Nos. 249, 257, 260, 268, 271, 18 276, 291, 293, 296, 300, 314, 318, 320, 332, 334. The documents that the moving parties 19 provisionally filed under seal at the docket entries listed above shall remain under seal. 20 As to the three sealing motions filed in connection with Uber’s motion for summary 21 judgment of noninfringement, which the Court decided on the merits, the Court rules as follows: 22 • Uber’s administrative motion to file seal, ECF No. 298, is GRANTED; 23 • X One’s administrative motion to file seal, ECF No. 322, is GRANTED in part and 24 DENIED with prejudice in part; and 25 • Uber’s administrative motion to file under seal, ECF No. 337, is DENIED with prejudice. 26

27 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 || Dated: February 12, 2020 3 . rucye KOH 4 United States District Judge 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