Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-06050/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-06050-15/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 IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 181

Before the Court is Plaintiff X One, Inc.’s (“X One”) Administrative Motion to File Under 

Seal (“Motion”). ECF 181. X One seeks to seal certain confidential information that it submitted 

to the Court in connection with the Parties’ June 7, 2019 joint discovery letter dispute regarding 

X One’s motion to compel in camera review of certain emails identified in Defendant Uber 

Technologies, Inc.’s (“Uber”) privilege logs and to compel further responses to X One’s Requests 

for Admission. ECF 184. 

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 

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 

Case 5:16-cv-06050-LHK Document 243 Filed 08/02/19 Page 1 of 4
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

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 X One 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 declarations of Jacob A. Schroeder 

(ECF 181-1) (“Schroeder Decl.”) and Christopher L. Robinson (ECF 239) (“Robinson Decl.”)

submitted in support thereof, the pleadings on file and the Parties’ efforts to narrowly tailor their 

sealing requests, the Motion is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

X One moves to seal the entirety of Exhibits 1–8 to the Parties’ June 7, 2019 joint 

discovery letter (ECF 184) because they contain information that Uber designated “Highly 

Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the protective order in this case. ECF 181 at 1; 

Schroeder Decl. ¶ 3. X One does not maintain a claim of confidentiality over the material 

contained in Exhibits 1–8. ECF 181 at 1. Uber filed a declaration under Civil Local Rule 79-

5(e)(1) and informed the Court that only Exhibits 3, 7 and 8 (ECF 181-5; ECF 181-9; ECF 181-

10) contain confidential information. Robinson Decl. ¶ 2. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS

X One’s motion as to the portions of Exhibits 3, 7 and 8 outlined below. The Court DENIES

X One’s motion as to the remainder of Exhibits 3, 7 and 8 and the entirety of Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5 

and 6. X One is to file unredacted versions of Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 on the public docket by 

August 12, 2019. Uber is to file redacted versions of Exhibits 3 and 8 as outlined below and in 

the Robinson Decl. on the public docket by August 12, 2019. 

////

////

////

////

////

////

Case 5:16-cv-06050-LHK Document 243 Filed 08/02/19 Page 2 of 4
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 3 to Joint 

Statement

Page 9, lines 17–211

Page 12, lines 1–2,

2

16–27

Page 13, lines 1–4, 8–12,

17–21, 22–23, 26–27

Page 14, lines 4–5

Page 15, lines 19–28

Page 16, lines 25–28

Page 17, lines 1–7, 10–19

Page 18, lines 7–16, 19–28

Page 19, lines 1, 17–26 

Page 20, lines 2–11

Exhibit 3 contains Uber’s confidential 

financial information, including highly 

confidential revenue, cost, operating 

profit and margin numbers information. 

Robinson Decl. ¶ 3. Disclosure of this 

information would provide a competitive

advantage to Uber’s competitors and 

allow them to tailor their business 

strategies based on Uber’s confidential 

financial and profit information. Id. This 

would harm Uber’s competitive standing 

in the ride-sharing industry. Id. 

Accordingly, the portions of Exhibit 3

identified in paragraph 6 of the Robinson 

Decl. may be filed under seal. 

Exhibit 7 to Joint 

Statement Entire Document 

Exhibit 7 is a hypothetical legal question 

and fact pattern prepared for evaluating 

applicants in Uber’s hiring process for its 

legal department, which shows Uber’s 

internal policies and procedures. 

Robinson Decl. ¶ 7. Disclosure of such 

information would reveal confidential 

information and details about Uber’s 

deliberative hiring and interview process 

and could harm Uber’s efforts to vet and 

hire employees. Id. at ¶¶ 7–8. 

Accordingly, Exhibit 7 may be filed

under seal. 

 

1 Although this portion of text does not relate to Uber’s financial information, it does discuss the 

hypothetical legal question and fact pattern prepared for evaluating applicants in Uber’s hiring 

process for its legal department that the Court finds may be filed under seal in its discussion of 

Exhibit 7. 

2 This portion of text contains a description of Uber’s proprietary technology and operations, 

which the Court has determined may be filed under seal in its discussion of Exhibit 8. 

Case 5:16-cv-06050-LHK Document 243 Filed 08/02/19 Page 3 of 4
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

Document Text to be Sealed Basis for Sealing Portion of Document

Exhibit 8 to Joint 

Statement

Page 5, lines 16, 19–28

Page 6, lines 2–28

Page 7, lines 2–12, 13, 15–

17, 18, 20–28 

Page 8, lines 2–28

Page 9, lines 2–11

Page 10, lines 17–18

Page 11, lines 4–5

Page 12, lines 22–28

Page 13, lines 1–11

Page 18, lines 25–27

Page 19, lines 1–4, 7–10

Page 20, lines 6–23

Page 21, lines 16–18, 24–26

Page 22, lines 2–8, 11–28

Page 23, lines 2–28

Page 24, lines 2–3, 5–6, 11,

14–16, 17, 19–28 

Page 25, lines 2–28

Page 26, lines 2–10

Page 30, line 5 

Exhibit 8 reveals highly confidential 

information related to Uber’s third-party 

patent license agreements, including the 

identities of the confidential third 

parties, the pricing terms and licensing 

fees, and the specific intellectual 

property assets subject to the licenses. 

Robinson Decl. ¶ 10. Disclosure of this 

information may impair Uber’s 

bargaining position in future 

negotiations with potential licensors and 

cause Uber competitive harm by 

revealing the names of Uber’s licensors, 

the types of assets that Uber has 

licensed, the prices that Uber has paid 

for those licenses, and other confidential 

commercial terms contained in its 

license agreements. Id. Further, 

Exhibit 8 also includes descriptions of 

proprietary technology used or 

contemplated for use in Uber’s products, 

and disclosure of this information would

confer an unfair advantage on Uber’s 

competitors by revealing specific 

technologies that Uber has or will 

incorporate in its products. Id. 

Accordingly, the portions of Exhibit 8 

identified in paragraph 15 of the 

Robinson Decl. may be filed under seal. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2019

SUSAN VAN KEULEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-06050-LHK Document 243 Filed 08/02/19 Page 4 of 4