United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00939 WHA

ORDER RE SEALING IN

CONNECTION WITH MOTION

FOR PROVISIONAL RELIEF

Plaintiff Waymo LLC’s administrative motion to file under seal portions of the order on

its motion for provisional relief (Dkt. No. 432) is GRANTED, subject to the following:

For the reasons stated in the aforementioned order, the Court finds that the redactions

appended hereto as Exhibit A, and no others, are appropriate at this time. Accordingly, that

version of the redacted order will be filed on the public docket at the conclusion of any appeal

therefrom or upon further order of the Court. Until then, it will remain under seal. In other

words, if either side appeals immediately from the order on Waymo’s motion for provisional

relief, they will be obligated to present the redaction issue to the court of appeals. On the other

hand, if neither side appeals at this stage, then the redaction issue will be dealt with in the

future, as explained below.

On a related point, this civil action has produced and will no doubt continue to produce

an evolving landscape of sealable material. For example, as this litigation progresses, it will

become clearer which of Waymo’s 121 asserted trade secrets — which, until now, have all been

kept under seal — actually qualify as such. Those that do not should ultimately be unsealed. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 435 Filed 05/15/17 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

As another example, certain material initially allowed to be filed under seal in connection with

Waymo’s motion for provisional relief — e.g., to prevent disclosure of trade secrets or

competitive harm to a party — should no longer remain under seal because one or both sides

have since voluntarily disclosed such material to the public, either in written submissions or

during oral argument.

Now that the dust has settled on Waymo’s motion for provisional relief, both sides are

ordered to MEET AND CONFER and to file revised public versions of documents previously filed

under seal as necessary to eliminate all unnecessary redactions. Redactions pertaining to

Waymo’s asserted trade secrets may be kept in place for the time being pending final resolution

of Waymo’s claims, either on appeal or in the normal course of litigation. The revised

documents must be filed in an organized manner, such that the public can readily identify and

reference each document, by JUNE 12 AT NOON, failing which the Court may consider imposing

a moratorium on hearing any further motions until all unnecessary redactions in the record have

been cured.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 15, 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 435 Filed 05/15/17 Page 2 of 2