Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-05558/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-05558-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

IRVING FIREMEN'S RELIEF & 

RETIREMENT FUND,

Plaintiff,

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-05558-HSG 

ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTIONS TO SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 134, 140, 149, 159

Pending before the Court are administrative motions to seal portions of several documents 

filed by Defendant Uber Technologies (“Uber”) and Plaintiff Irving Firemen’s Relief and 

Retirement Fund (“Irving”). Dkt. Nos. 134, 140, 149, 159. Having carefully considered the 

pending motions and supporting declarations, the Court GRANTS the parties’ motions.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

For motions to seal that comply with the local rules, courts generally apply a “compelling 

reasons” standard. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–78 (9th Cir. 2010). “This 

standard derives from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, 

including judicial records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 

447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “Unless a particular court record is one traditionally kept 

secret, a strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 

(quotation marks and citation omitted). To overcome this strong presumption, the moving party 

must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 

general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 

understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1178–79 (citations, quotation marks, and alterations 

omitted). “In general, compelling reasons sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure 

Case 4:17-cv-05558-HSG Document 173 Filed 07/30/19 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

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.” Id. at 1179 (quotation marks and citation

omitted). The Court must:

balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks 

to keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these 

interests, if the Court decides to seal certain judicial records, it must 

base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual 

basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.

Id. (citations, brackets, and quotation marks omitted). 

Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. The party seeking 

to file under seal must submit “a request that establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are 

privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . . The 

request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material . . . .” Civil L.R. 79-

5(b). Courts have found that “confidential business information” in the form of “license 

agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies” 

satisfies the “compelling reasons” standard. See In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17-cv-0108-GPCMDD, 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) (observing that sealing such information 

“prevent[ed] competitors from gaining insight into the parties’ business model and strategy”); 

Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc., No. 13-cv-03345-BLF (JSC), 2015 WL 3988132, at *5 (N.D. Cal. 

June 30, 2015). 

Finally, 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). Accordingly, parties moving to seal such records need 

only meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). Id. at 1097. The “good cause” standard 

requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information 

is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th 

Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

//

//

Case 4:17-cv-05558-HSG Document 173 Filed 07/30/19 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

II. DISCUSSION

All portions sought to be sealed pertain to Irving’s second amended complaint, Uber’s 

motion to dismiss the operative complaint, and related briefing. Dkt. Nos. 134, 140, 149, 159. 

Because these documents do not qualify as nondispositive motions, the Court applies the 

“compelling reasons” standard.

The current sealing requests are materially identical to prior sealing requests, which this 

Court granted. See Dkt. No. 128. In all instances, the excerpts sought to be sealed contain

information disseminated only to certain investors with access to the “non-public offering of 

limited partnership interests . . . pursuant to exemptions from the requirements for public offerings 

under the Securities Act of 1933 and similar exemptions under the laws of other jurisdictions.” 

Compare Dkt. No. 67 ¶ 7, with Dkt. No. 138 ¶ 7. And as the Court previously explained, the 

relevant designating entities have “provided a compelling interest in sealing portions of these 

documents . . . which contain confidential business information relating to New Riders and 

Morgan Stanley’s confidential partnership agreements.” Dkt. No. 128 at 3 (citing Apple Inc. v. 

Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 6115623 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012); 

Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc., No. 13-cv-03345-BLF (JSC), 2015 WL 3988132, at *5 (N.D. Cal. 

June 30, 2015) (observing that courts “regularly find that litigants may file under seal contracts 

with third parties that contain proprietary and confidential business information”); In re 

Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17-CV-0108-GPC-MDD, 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 

2017) (finding that “license agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing 

negotiations, and business strategies” containing “confidential business information” satisfied the 

“compelling reasons” standard in part because sealing that information “prevent[ed] competitors 

from gaining insight into the parties’ business model and strategy”)). So too here. See Dkt. Nos. 

136, 137, 138, 146, 153, 162. And the Court sees no reason why it should here find that 

information it previously deemed sealable no longer meets the “compelling reasons” standard. 

Nor has any party opposed the pending sealing requests on new grounds. Cf. Dkt. Nos. 38, 69, 93, 

107 (Irving’s oppositions to prior sealing requests).

The Court accordingly finds that the parties have met the standard to warrant sealing 

Case 4:17-cv-05558-HSG Document 173 Filed 07/30/19 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

relevant portions of Irving’s operative complaint, Uber’s motion to dismiss, and related briefings. 

III. CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS the pending administrative sealing motions. Dkt. Nos. 134, 140, 149,

159. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(1), documents filed under seal as to which the

administrative motions are granted will remain under seal. The public will have access only to the 

redacted versions accompanying the administrative motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 7/30/2019

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:17-cv-05558-HSG Document 173 Filed 07/30/19 Page 4 of 4