Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04065/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04065-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Property

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICK COTTER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LYFT, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-04065-VC 

ORDER DENYING IN PART AND 

GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO 

SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 178, 179

The motion to seal is denied to the extent Lyft seeks to seal portions of the plaintiffs' 

supplemental brief in support of their motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement

and Exhibit 3 to the Liss-Riordan declaration in support of the motion to seal. The motion to 

seal is granted as to Exhibit 4 to the Liss-Riordan declaration in support of the motion to seal. 

Lyft asserts that information about the average number of hours driven and the 

distribution of hours driven by Lyft drivers must be concealed from the public because Lyft's 

competitors could theoretically use information about the characteristics of full-time Lyft drivers 

to target and recruit those drivers for their competing services. But the information sought to be 

sealed in the supplemental brief and Exhibit 3 does not describe any unusual characteristics or 

other revealing information that would allow competitors to identify and target those drivers, and 

Lyft does not explain how the average number of hours driven and the distribution of hours 

driven could be used in the nefarious manner Lyft suggests. Lyft also asserts that information 

about the number of miles driven by Lyft drivers would allow competitors to determine the 

growth rate of Lyft's business and the approximate size of Lyft's business, and that competitors 

could use that information to determine how successful Lyft's recruitment and marketing efforts 

have been as compared to competitors' efforts. But as with the assertion about averages and 

Case 3:13-cv-04065-VC Document 183 Filed 03/16/16 Page 1 of 2
2

distribution of hours driven, Lyft makes this assertion at a high level of abstraction, without 

explaining, in concrete terms or with examples, how Lyft's competitors might take advantage of 

the actual information sought to be sealed in the manner Lyft suggests. Finally, Lyft suggests 

that a general description of some of its safety protocols could hamper its ability to ensure the 

safety of its passengers and drivers by discouraging passengers and drivers from reporting safety 

concerns. But again, Lyft does not explain how revealing the limited information contained in 

the supplemental brief would lead passengers or drivers to refrain from reporting safety 

concerns. 

Because the supplemental brief in support of the motion for preliminary approval and 

Exhibit 3 to the Liss-Riordan declaration in support of the motion to seal are "more than 

tangentially related to the merits of [the] case," Lyft has not satisfied the standard for filing these 

documents under seal. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 

2016). As to Exhibit 4 to the Liss-Riordan declaration in support of the motion to seal, the Court 

finds there are compelling reasons to seal this document because revealing the precise details of 

Lyft's internal safety response protocols might harm Lyft's competitive standing. See id.at 1096-

97. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to unseal the plaintiffs' supplemental brief 

and Exhibit 3 to the Liss-Riordan declaration in support of the motion to seal on Friday, March 

18, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2016

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-04065-VC Document 183 Filed 03/16/16 Page 2 of 2