Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-06050/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-06050-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

X ONE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-06050-LHK (SVK)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

REVISED ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 240

Before the Court is Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.’s (“Uber”) Revised Administrative 

Motion to File Under Seal (“Motion”). ECF 240. Uber seeks to seal certain confidential 

information that it submitted to the Court in connection with the Parties’ May 23, 2019 joint 

discovery letter regarding Uber’s renewed motion to strike Plaintiff X One, Inc.’s (“X One”)

response to Uber’s Interrogatory No. 11 and X One’s infringement contentions. ECF 153. In 

particular, Uber seeks to seal Exhibit B to the joint letter, which is Uber’s Supplemental 

Responses to X One’s Third Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 9–20). ECF 152-6. Uber previously 

moved to seal the entirety of Exhibit B. ECF 152. However, the Court denied Uber’s motion to 

seal Exhibit B without prejudice after finding that Exhibit B is not limited to a discussion or 

excerpts of Uber’s source code. ECF 234. The Court further ordered that Uber may submit a 

revised motion to seal Exhibit B after narrowly tailoring its motion to only sealable material. Id. 

On July 24, 2019, Uber filed a revised motion to seal Exhibit B. ECF 240. 

Courts recognize a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, 

including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 

1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 

(1978)). A request to seal court records therefore starts with a “strong presumption in favor of 

Case 5:16-cv-06050-LHK Document 242 Filed 08/02/19 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

access.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 

1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The standard for overcoming the presumption of public access to 

court records depends on the purpose for which the records are filed with the court. A party 

seeking to seal court records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the 

underlying cause of action” must demonstrate “compelling reasons” that support secrecy. Ctr. For 

Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016). For records attached to 

motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of the case,” the lower 

“good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) applies. Id.; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. A party 

moving to seal court records must also comply with the procedures established by Civil Local 

Rule 79-5. 

Here, the “good cause” standard applies because the information Uber seeks to seal was 

submitted to the Court in connection with a discovery dispute, rather than a motion that concerns 

the merits of the case. Having considered the Motion, the declaration of Thomas J. Pardini 

(ECF 240-1) submitted in support thereof, the pleadings on file and Uber’s efforts to narrowly 

tailor it sealing requests, the Motion is hereby GRANTED. 

The Court finds that the redacted portions of Exhibit B to the joint discovery letter 

(ECF 152-6; ECF 240-2) contain highly confidential information regarding the functionality and 

operation of Uber’s source code, as well as the names of various internal services and software 

modules in Uber’s source code. Pardini Decl. ¶ 2. Disclosure of this information would harm 

Uber’s competitive standing in the ride-sharing industry by revealing insights into the operation 

and functionality of Uber’s source code. Id. Other portions of Exhibit B contain confidential 

information regarding the locations of Uber’s data centers and the internal code names for various 

versions of Uber’s applications. Id. at ¶ 3. Uber maintains the confidentiality of this information

to protect data security and allow its internal projects to develop freely without competitive harm 

or interference. Id. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Uber’s motion to seal the redacted portions 

of Exhibit B. 

////

////

Case 5:16-cv-06050-LHK Document 242 Filed 08/02/19 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following materials should be sealed and that 

counsel for Uber may file the following materials under seal. 

Document Text to be Sealed Basis for Sealing Portion of Document

Exhibit B to 

Joint Discovery 

Letter

Page 9, lines 1–6

Page 15, line 6–page 18, 

line 28

Page 24, line 2–page 27, 

line 24

Page 32, lines 1–4

Page 33, lines 14–25

Page 55, lines 7–20

Page 57, lines 13–15, 

17–18

Page 59, line 14–

page 60, line 4

Page 62, lines 7–8

Page 64, lines 10–16

The proposed redacted portion contains highly 

confidential information regarding the 

functionality and operation of Uber’s source 

code, as well as the names of various internal 

services and software modules in Uber’s 

source code. Pardini Decl. ¶ 2. Disclosure of 

this information would harm Uber’s 

competitive standing in the ride-sharing 

industry. Id. Other portions of Exhibit B 

contain confidential information regarding the 

locations of Uber’s data centers and the 

internal code names for various versions of 

Uber’s applications. Id. at ¶ 3. Uber 

maintains the confidentiality of this 

information to protect data security and allow 

its internal projects to develop freely without 

competitive harm or interference. Id. 

Accordingly, Uber may file these portions of 

Exhibit B under seal. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2019 

SUSAN VAN KEULEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-06050-LHK Document 242 Filed 08/02/19 Page 3 of 3