Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05678/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05678-23/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 DEFENDANT'S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL

Re: ECF No. 149

Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. moves to file under seal portions of Exhibits A, D, E, 

and F to the Declaration of Sarah J Crooks in Support of Uber’s Motion for Summary Judgment 

(“Crooks Declaration”); the entirety of Exhibits G, I, and J to the Crooks Declaration; and portions 

of the Declaration of Kevin Roth (“Roth Declaration”). ECF No. 149. The Court previously 

granted Uber’s motion as to Exhibits A, I, and J to the Crooks Declaration and portions of the 

Roth Declaration. ECF No. 154. Plaintiffs have now filed a declaration in support of sealing. See

ECF No. 155. The Court will grant in part and deny in part the motion as to Exhibits D–G to the 

Crooks Declaration.

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 

Case 3:14-cv-05678-JST Document 156 Filed 05/06/16 Page 1 of 5
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

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).

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).1 

“‘[C]ompelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and 

justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for 

improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, 

circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting

Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. The Nixon court also noted that the “common-law right of inspection has 

bowed before the power of a court to insure that its records” are not used as “sources of business 

information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing.” 435 U.S. at 598.

The Ninth Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, has identified a trade secret in this context as 

“any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one’s business, and 

which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use 

it.” In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Restatement of Torts § 

 

1 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).

Case 3:14-cv-05678-JST Document 156 Filed 05/06/16 Page 2 of 5
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

757, cmt. b). In that case, applying Kamakana and Nixon, the Ninth Circuit reversed a district 

court for refusing to seal information that qualified under this standard. In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 

Fed. App’x. at 569. The Federal Circuit has similarly concluded that under Ninth Circuit law, 

detailed product-specific financial information, customer information, and internal reports are 

appropriately sealable under the “compelling reasons” standard where that information could be 

used to the company’s competitive disadvantage. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 727 F.3d 

1214, 1226, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

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).

II. DISCUSSION

The present motion to file under seal concerns documents associated with Defendant 

Uber’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Under the test most recently articulated by Center for 

Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, 809 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2016), a motion for summary judgment 

involves issues that are more than “tangentially related to the merits of the case,” thereby requiring 

the Court to apply the compelling reasons standard. 

Uber seeks to seal portions of Exhibits D–G as Plaintiffs have designated the transcripts as 

confidential. See ECF No. 149. 

Document 

Name Description and Requested Redaction Court’s Ruling

Crooks Decl., 

Ex. D

Excerpts of the deposition of Plaintiff Jennifer Reilly: Tr. at 

10:1-11:25, 32:1-25 

Denied. 

Crooks Decl., 

Ex. E

Excerpts of the deposition of Plaintiff James Lathrop: Tr. at 

76:1-77:25

Granted.

Crooks Decl., 

Ex. F

Excerpts of the deposition of Plaintiff Jonathan Grindell: Tr. 

at 66:1-25 

Granted.

Crooks Decl., 

Ex. G

Excerpts of the deposition of Plaintiff Justin Bartolet: Entire 

document

Granted as to Tr. 

112:1–25.

Exhibit D to the Crooks Declaration contains excerpts of the deposition transcript of 

Plaintiff Jennifer Reilly. Plaintiffs contend that this portion of Exhibit D need not be sealed. ECF 

Case 3:14-cv-05678-JST Document 156 Filed 05/06/16 Page 3 of 5
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

No. 155, Silver Decl. ¶ 3. The Court accordingly denies the motion to file under seal as to Exhibit 

D. 

Exhibit E to the Crooks Declaration contains excerpts of the deposition transcript of 

Plaintiff James Lathrop. The transcript at 76:1–77:25 contain sensitive information belonging to 

Mr. Lathrop, including his license plate number and driver’s license number. Plaintiffs argue that 

“[i]f revealed, this information could be used for improper purposes.” Silver Decl. ¶ 4. 

Compelling reasons exist to seal this portion of Exhibit E. The requested sealing is also narrowly 

tailored. 

Exhibit F to the Crooks Declaration contains excerpts of the deposition transcript of 

Plaintiff Jonathan Grindell. The transcript at 66:1–25 contains sensitive information belonging to 

Mr. Grindell, including his driver’s license number and a portion of his social security number. 

Plaintiffs argue that “[i]f revealed, this information could be used for improper purposes.” Silver 

Decl. ¶ 5. Compelling reasons exist to seal this portion of Exhibit F. The requested sealing is also 

narrowly tailored. 

Exhibit G to the Crooks Declaration contains excerpts of the deposition transcript of 

Plaintiff Justin Bartolet. Uber filed Exhibit G under seal in its entirety, but Plaintiffs have since 

designated only page 112 of the transcript as “Confidential.” Silver Decl. ¶ 6. The transcript at 

112:1–25 contains sensitive, private information belonging to Mr. Bartolet, such as his driver’s 

license number. Plaintiffs argue that “[i]f revealed, this information could be used for improper 

purposes.” Id. Compelling reasons exist to seal page 112. As Plaintiffs do not seek to seal the 

remainder of the transcript, the request is also narrowly tailored. 

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

have identified compelling reasons to justify sealing portions of Exhibits E, F, and G to the Crooks 

Declaration. Plaintiffs also narrowly tailored to seal only sealable information, as Local Rule 79-5 

requires. 

III. CONCLUSION

The Court grants in part and denies in part the administrative motions to file under seal at 

ECF No. 149. “[T]he document[s] filed under seal will remain under seal and the public will have 

Case 3:14-cv-05678-JST Document 156 Filed 05/06/16 Page 4 of 5
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

access only to the redacted version, if any, accompanying the motion.” Civil L. R. 79-5(f)(1). 

The Court will not consider those portions of the documents that are unsealable unless the filing 

party 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.

The hearing date and briefing schedule on the underlying motion for summary judgment 

shall remain as originally set.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05678-JST Document 156 Filed 05/06/16 Page 5 of 5