Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05678/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05678-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 47:227 Telephone Consumer Protection Act

---

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

JAMES LATHROP, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-05678-JST 

ORDER REGARDING 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO 

FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: ECF Nos. 127, 129

Both parties bring administrative motions to file under seal documents related to the 

parties’ Joint Letter Brief. ECF Nos. 127, 129. Uber has filed declarations in support of sealing.

ECF Nos. 127-1, 131. For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant in part and deny in part 

both motions. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD

A party seeking to seal a document filed with the court must (1) comply with Civil Local 

Rule 79-5; and (2) rebut the “a strong presumption in favor of access” that applies to all 

documents other than grand jury transcripts or pre-indictment warrant materials. Kamakana v. 

City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citation and quotations 

omitted).

With respect to the first prong, Local Rule 79-5 requires, as a threshold, a request that 

(1) “establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade secret 

or otherwise entitled to protection under the law”; and (2) is “narrowly tailored to seek sealing 

only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). An administrative motion to seal must also fulfill 

the requirements of Civil Local Rule 79-5(d). “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that 

allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a 

document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A).

Case 3:14-cv-05678-JST Document 132 Filed 02/18/16 Page 1 of 6
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

With respect to the second prong, the showing required for overcoming the strong 

presumption of access depends on the type of motion to which the document is attached. “[A] 

‘compelling reasons’ standard applies to most judicial records. This standard derives from the 

common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 

and documents.’” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 

Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 n.7 (1978)). To overcome this strong 

presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record must “articulate compelling reasons 

supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public 

policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79 (internal citations omitted). 

On the other hand, records attached to motions that are only “tangentially related to the 

merits of a case” are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. 

Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, a party need only make a 

showing under the good cause standard of Rule 26(c) to justify the sealing of the materials. Id. at 

1097. A court may, for good cause, keep documents confidential “to protect a party or person 

from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c).

A district court must “articulate [the] . . . reasoning or findings underlying its decision to 

seal.” Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 

2374 (2012).

II. DISCUSSION

Here, as the parties seek to file under seal documents connected with a discovery letter 

brief, the Court will apply the “good cause” standard. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 

(“Applying the good cause standard from Rule 26(c) as an exception for discovery-related motions 

makes sense, as the private interests of litigants are ‘the only weights on the scale.’” (quoting 

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180)).

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:14-cv-05678-JST Document 132 Filed 02/18/16 Page 2 of 6
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

Uber’s Motion at ECF No. 127

Uber moves to file under seal the following documents and portions of documents: 

Document Name Portions Sought to be Filed 

Under Seal or Redacted

Court’s Ruling

Decl. of Michael McGoveran ¶¶ 22, 24-28, 30, 32-40, 42–43, 

and 46–51

¶¶ 22, 24-26, 28, 30, 32–40, 

43, and 46–51

Ex. C to Bernard Decl. Entire document Entire document

Ex. D to Bernard Decl. Entire document Entire document 

Ex. E to Bernard Decl. Paragraph 4, line 3 Paragraph 4, line 3 

The paragraphs Uber seeks to redact from the McGoveran declaration “describe or make 

statements derived from Uber’s methodology for writing log files, as well as the content, 

organization, volume, and storage location of those files.” ECF No. 127-1, Bernard Decl. ¶ 3. 

The paragraphs also describe Uber’s source code. Except for paragraphs 27 and 42, the Court 

agrees that the information constitute proprietary information “that Uber maintains as a trade 

secret.” Id. ¶¶ 3–4. Uber has met its burden to show that this information should be redacted. 

However, paragraph 27 describes information unrelated to Uber’s trade secret and paragraph 42 

only gives a generalized description of the impracticality of one step in the discovery process and 

should not be redacted.

Exhibit C to the Bernard Declaration is a contract between Uber and Twilio. Uber states

that the contract discloses confidential information with respect to the terms under which Uber 

conducts its business. Id. ¶ 8. Good cause exists to seal Exhibit C because revealing the terms of 

Exhibit C could cause harm to Uber and Twilio’s competitive position. Id. ¶ 9.

Exhibit D to the Bernard Declaration contains experts from the 30(b)(6) deposition of 

Michael Kadin, which took place on January 25, 2016. The transcript refers to Uber’s source code 

and logging techniques, which Uber maintains as a trade secret. Id. ¶ 5.

Exhibit E to the Bernard Declaration is a letter that Uber’s counsel sent to Plaintiffs’ 

counsel. Line 3 of the fourth paragraph lists the internal code names for Uber’s software and 

systems. Uber maintains this information as a trade secret. Id. ¶ 6.

Other than the proposed redactions to paragraphs 27 and 42 of the McGoveran Declaration, 

the Court finds that Uber has established “good cause” to justify sealing the confidential business 

Case 3:14-cv-05678-JST Document 132 Filed 02/18/16 Page 3 of 6
4

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

information. The Court has viewed the documents and the redacted information and finds that 

Uber has met its burden to show that the requested information should be sealed. The Court also 

finds that the instant motion is narrowly tailored to seal only sealable information, as Local Rule 

79-5 requires. 

The Court will not consider those portions of the McGoveran Declaration that are 

unsealable unless Uber files the document in the public record without the redactions the Court 

has rejected, in conformance with this Order, within seven days from the date of this Order. 

A. Plaintiffs’ Motion at ECF No. 129

Plaintiffs move to file under seal the following documents and portions of documents:

Document Name Portions Sought to be Filed 

Under Seal or Redacted

Court’s Ruling

Joint Letter Brief Entire document1 As redacted in Ex. A to the 

Bernard Decl. at ECF No. 131

Decl. of Randall A. Snyder ¶¶ 3, 26, 27, 31–35, and 37–40 ¶¶ 31–35, and 37–40

Exhibit B to the Snyder Decl. Entire document Entire document

Exhibit C to the Snyder Decl. Entire document Entire document

Decl. of Arthur Olsen ¶¶ 3, 14, 18-39, 41-43, and 45 ¶¶ 3, 14, 18-39, 41-43, and 45

Ex. 3 to the Joint Letter Brief Entire document Entire document

Ex. 4 to the Joint Letter Brief Entire document Entire document

Supp. Decl. of Arthur Olsen ¶¶ 5–13, 16–20, and 22–24 ¶¶ 5–13, 16–20, and 22–24

Plaintiffs seek to file the aforementioned documents under seal because the documents 

“contain information designated as confidential or highly confidential by [Uber].” ECF No. 129-

1, Silver Decl. ¶ 2. Uber, as the designating party, filed a declaration to establish that the 

designated material is sealable. See ECF No. 131, Bernard Decl.; see also Civil L.R. 79-5(e)(1). 

Uber seeks to redact portions of the Joint Letter Brief that refers to the confidential 

information Uber maintains as a trade secret. “The redacted information also describes or makes 

statements derived from Uber’s methodology for writing log files, as well as the content, 

organization, volume, and storage location of those files.” ECF No. 131, Bernard Decl. ¶ 2. Uber

asserts that “[r]evelation of how Uber’s systems operate or Uber’s analysis and description of this 

operation in a public court filing could have an effect on the trade secret nature of Uber’s systems 

 

1 Rather than seal the entire document, Uber proposes to redact several paragraphs from the Joint 

Letter Brief. See ECF No. 131, Bernard Decl. ¶ 2; Ex. A.

Case 3:14-cv-05678-JST Document 132 Filed 02/18/16 Page 4 of 6
5

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

and could cause significant harm to Uber’s competitive and financial position within its industry.” 

Id. ¶ 3. The Court agrees that as to the sections Uber has identified in the Joint Letter Brief, 

Uber’s interest in confidentiality outweighs the public’s interest in disclosure and good cause 

exists to redact the sections from the public record. 

Uber also seeks to redact paragraphs 3, 26, 27, 31-35, and 37-40 of the Snyder Declaration 

because they discuss “specific, technical, confidential information about records maintained by 

Twilio and the systems used by Uber and Twilio to conduct business pursuant to the contract 

between them.” Id. ¶ 4. These paragraphs reference the Kadin Declaration, Kadin Transcript, and 

other materials Uber designated as confidential. The Court does not find that good cause exists to 

redact paragraph 3, as it only references the documents Snyder relied upon in forming his 

opinions; paragraph 26, as it only generally identifies the format of Twilio’s message records; and 

paragraph 27, because it only redacts the reference to an exhibit number. 

Exhibit B to the Snyder Declaration contains text message records Uber has produced for 

the Plaintiffs using Twilio’s database. Because Uber’s contract with Twilio “requires Uber to use 

commercially reasonable efforts to protect Twilio’s confidential information,” Uber argues that 

good cause exists to seal Exhibit B. Id. ¶ 5.

Exhibit C to the Snyder Declaration contains excerpts of the Kadin Transcript, which 

discusses “specific, technical, confidential information about records maintained by Twilio and the 

systems used by Uber and Twilio.” Id. ¶ 6.

The Court finds that good cause exists to redact paragraphs 31-35 and 37-40 of the Snyder 

Declaration and to seal Exhibit B and C because revelation of this information could cause harm to 

Uber’s “competitive and financial” position. See id. ¶ 7.

Paragraphs 3, 14, 18-39, 41-43, and 45 of the Olsen Declaration and paragraphs 5-13, 16-

20, and 22-24 of the Supplemental Olsen Declaration make reference to the Kadin Declaration, the 

Kadin Transcript, and other materials designated as confidential by Uber in discovery. The 

paragraphs describe or make statements derived from Uber’s methodology for writing log files, as 

well as other information on the content, organization, volume, and storage location of the files. 

Uber states that the information is “central to the operation of Uber’s business” and is maintained 

Case 3:14-cv-05678-JST Document 132 Filed 02/18/16 Page 5 of 6
6

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

as a trade secret. Id. ¶ 8. Because revelation of this information would affect the trade secret 

nature of this information, good cause exists to redact these paragraphs.

Exhibit 3 to the Joint Letter Brief contains excerpts of the deposition transcript of Michael 

Kadin, who describes Uber’s methodology for writing text files and other descriptions about these 

files. As stated above, this is information that Uber maintains as a trade secret revelation of which 

could competitively and financially harm Uber. Good cause exists to file Exhibit 3 under seal.

Exhibit 4 is a copy of a publicly available document. Uber states, and the Court agrees, 

that good cause does not exist to seal this exhibit.

The Court will not consider those portions of the Snyder Declaration that are unsealable 

and Exhibit 4 to the Joint Letter Brief unless Plaintiffs file the documents in the public record 

without the redactions the Court has rejected, in conformance with this Order, within seven days 

from the date of this Order. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part Uber’s administrative 

motion to file under seal and grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to 

file under seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05678-JST Document 132 Filed 02/18/16 Page 6 of 6