Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-02931/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-02931-11/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

IN RE UBER TEXT MESSAGING

Case No. 18-cv-02931-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO 

FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 81, 89, 92

Currently before the Court are three administrative motions to file documents and portions 

of the briefs under seal in connection with Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.’s (“Uber”) motion 

to compel arbitration. See Dkt. Nos. 81, 89, 92. The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN 

PART the motions to file under seal, as described below.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 

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

v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from 

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

records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in 

favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotation omitted). To 

overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a 

dispositive motion 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” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–

79 (quotation omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s 

Case 4:18-cv-02931-HSG Document 102 Filed 05/30/19 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

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.” Id. at 1179 

(quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the 

production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further 

litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id.

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. Civil Local Rule 79-5 

supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file a 

document or portions of it under seal must “establish[] 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). 

Records attached to nondispositive motions, however, are not subject to the strong 

presumption of access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Because such records “are often 

unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties moving to seal 

must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Id. at 1179–80 (quotation omitted). This requires only a “particularized showing” that “specific 

prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 

F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, 

unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., 

Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted).

II. DISCUSSION

The parties filed three administrative motions to file under seal portions of certain exhibits 

along with excerpts of their briefs that quote from or rely upon those exhibits. See Dkt. Nos. 81, 

89, 92. 

The Court will apply the compelling reasons standard, because it finds that, at least for 

Case 4:18-cv-02931-HSG Document 102 Filed 05/30/19 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

purposes of a motion to seal, a motion to compel is a dispositive motion. Uber assumes without 

argument that the lower, good cause standard applies. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 81 at 2–3. The Ninth 

Circuit “has not provided clear guidance on distinguishing dispositive from non-dispositive 

motions,” Ovonic Battery Co., Inc. v. Sanyo Elec. Co., Ltd, No. 14-CV-01637-JD, 2014 WL 

2758756, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2014), and “district courts differ on whether a motion to 

compel arbitration is a dispositive or nondispositive motion for sealing purposes,” Martin v. Wells 

Fargo Bank, N.A., No. CV 12-06030 SI, 2013 WL 5441973, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2013)

(collecting cases). To be sure, some courts have assumed without discussion that a motion to 

compel arbitration is a nondispositive motion. See, e.g., Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa 

Diagnostics, Inc., No. 12-CV-05501-SI, 2015 WL 5117083, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2015), 

aff’d, 830 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Hunt v. Cont’l Cas. Co., No. 13-CV-05966-HSG, 2015 WL 

1518067, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2015). 

But the Court finds more persuasive the reasoned opinions concluding that a motion to 

compel arbitration is dispositive because of its similarities to motions to remand or transfer. See, 

e.g., Langell v. Ideal Homes LLC, No. 16-CV-00821-HRL, 2016 WL 8711704, at *3–4 (N.D. Cal. 

Nov. 18, 2016), report and recommendation adopted, No. 16-CV-00821-LHK, 2016 WL 

10859440 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2016). Courts in the Ninth Circuit employ a “functional approach” 

to determine whether a motion is dispositive by looking to its effect. See Flam v. Flam, 788 F.3d 

1043, 1046 (9th Cir. 2015). Like a motion to remand or transfer, a motion to compel results in the 

case being transferred to a different forum for resolution of the merits. Cf. id. at 1047 (holding 

that motion to remand is dispositive because it “preclusively determines the important point that 

there will not be a federal forum available to entertain a particular dispute”) (internal quotation 

omitted). Though a federal court technically retains jurisdiction to enforce arbitration awards, the 

“limited and highly deferential” mode of review, Comedy Club, Inc. v. Improv W. Assocs., 553 

F.3d 1277, 1288 (9th Cir. 2009), has the practical impact of “put[ting] the parties effectively out 

of federal court,” Harmston v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 627 F.3d 1273, 1278–79 (9th Cir. 

2010) (internal quotation and emphasis omitted). Thus, the Court finds that a motion to compel is 

dispositive and accordingly, it applies the compelling reasons standard to the motions to file under 

Case 4:18-cv-02931-HSG Document 102 Filed 05/30/19 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

seal.1

The Court grants the motions to seal as to Ziers’s personal information, such as his phone 

number, email address, and payment card information. The public interest in this information is 

extremely minimal and the potential for abuse is high.

Uber asks the Court to seal the remaining entries in the spreadsheets it has provided, along 

with large portions of the Narayanan deposition, asserting that they contain “confidential 

information regarding Uber’s internal procedures and databases.” See Dkt. No. 92-1 ¶ 4. 

According to Uber, large-scale redactions are needed to protect this “valuable business 

information” from competitors. See id. ¶ 5. The Court has reviewed the proposed redactions and 

finds them substantially overbroad and not rising to the level of trade secrets or other protectable 

material. In addition, disclosure of these excerpts is necessary for the public to be able to 

understand the Court’s ruling on the motion to compel. For example, many of the excerpts of 

Narayanan’s deposition that Uber asserts are confidential are questions to which he answered “I 

don’t know.” See, e.g., Dkt. No. 92-3 at 125. Uber also seeks to seal highly relevant information, 

including Narayanan’s definitions of various technical terms (such as “back-end services” and 

“epoch”), the basis of his declaration, foundation for his familiarity with the exhibits he provided, 

and third-party sources from which Uber collects personal information. Uber has not met its 

burden to establish a compelling reason to seal these broad swaths of Narayanan’s deposition 

testimony. Further, even if the Court were to find that the good cause standard applied, it would 

arrive at the same conclusion, because Uber has failed to make the requisite particularized 

showing that specific prejudice or harm will result from public disclosure of these documents.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:

Dkt. No.

Public/

(Sealed)

Document Portion(s) Sought to be 

Sealed

Ruling

81-3/(81-4)

Exhibit G 

(UBER00000

02)

Entries underneath 

“signup_mobile” and 

“signup_email” GRANTED: personal information

 

1 To the extent the Court previously found to the contrary in Hunt, 2015 WL 1518067, at *3, it 

reconsiders the view expressed there.

Case 4:18-cv-02931-HSG Document 102 Filed 05/30/19 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

UUID and signup date DENIED: no personal information, 

no compelling reason to seal

81-5/(81-6)

Exhibit H 

(UBER00000

03–06)

Entries underneath 

“destination_string” and 

“card_number”

GRANTED: personal information

Remaining entries in table DENIED: no personal information, 

no compelling reason to seal

81-7/(81-8)

Exhibit I 

(UBER00000

01)

Entries underneath 

“card_bin”, “card_number”, 

“card_expires_at”

GRANTED: personal information

Remaining entries in table DENIED: no personal information, 

no compelling reason to seal

89-3/(89-4) Plaintiffs’ 

Sur-Reply

4:14–15, 17–27

6:19–20, 27

7:5–11, 21–22, FN5, FN6

8:1–2

DENIED: no personal information, 

no compelling reason to seal

89-5/(89-6)

Declaration of 

Christopher 

Ziers

Payment card info in lines 

7–9

GRANTED: personal information

89-7/(89-8)

Exhibit A

(UBER00000

1–06)

Entries underneath 

“card_bin”, “card_number”, 

“card_expires_at”, 

“signup_mobile”, 

“signup_email”, 

“destination_string”, and 

“card_number”

GRANTED: personal information

Remaining entries in table DENIED: no personal information, 

no compelling reason to seal

89-9/(89-

10)

Exhibit B

(UBER00000

07–08)

Entire document DENIED: no personal information, 

no compelling reason to seal

89-11/(89-

12)

Exhibit C

(Narayanan 

deposition 

and 

supporting 

exhibits)

Entries underneath 

“card_bin”, “card_number”, 

“card_expires_at”, 

“signup_mobile”, 

“signup_email”, 

“destination_string”, and 

“card_number”

GRANTED: personal information

Excerpts throughout, see 

Dkt. No. 91-1 ¶ 8; 

remaining entries in tables 

in attached exhibits

DENIED: no personal information, 

not narrowly tailored

92-4/(92-3)

Exhibit A 

(Narayanan 

deposition)

Excerpts throughout, see 

Dkt. No. 92-1

DENIED: not narrowly tailored

III. CONCLUSION

The Court DIRECTS the parties to file public versions of all documents for which the 

Case 4:18-cv-02931-HSG Document 102 Filed 05/30/19 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

proposed sealing has been denied by June 7, 2019. 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:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

5/30/2019

Case 4:18-cv-02931-HSG Document 102 Filed 05/30/19 Page 6 of 6