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

MARTIN DULBERG, individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and

RASIER LLC,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00850 WHA

ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE

MOTIONS TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL

In our circuit, courts start with a “strong presumption in favor of access” when deciding

whether to seal records. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.

2006) (citation omitted). To seal records in connection with a “dispositive” motion or a motion

that “more than tangentially relate[s] to the merits of a case,” “compelling reasons supported by

specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies

favoring disclosure” are required. See id. at 1178–79 (quotations and citations omitted); see

also Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). A

particularized showing of “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), however,

suffices to warrant sealing in connection with a non-dispositive motion. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at

1179–80.

Civil Local Rule 79-5 requires that administrative motions to file under seal be

accompanied by “[a] declaration establishing that the document sought to be filed under seal, or

portions thereof, are sealable.” For example, “[t]he publication of materials that could result in

infringement upon trade secrets has long been considered a factor that would overcome [the]
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

strong presumption” in favor of access and provide compelling reasons for sealing. Apple Inc.

v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011). Compelling reasons may also warrant

sealing for “sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing,”

especially where the public has “minimal interest” in the information because it “is not

necessary to the public’s understanding of the case.” See Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435

U.S. 589, 598 (1978); Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1221–22 (Fed.

Cir. 2013) (applying the law of our circuit). 

In our district, “[r]eference 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.” Moreover, administrative motions to file under seal must “be

narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” C.L.R. 79-5. Supporting

declarations may not rely on vague boilerplate language or nebulous assertions of potential

harm but must explain with particularity why any document or portion thereof remains sealable

under the applicable legal standard. Requests not narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of

sealable material as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5 shall be denied.

With these principles in mind, this order GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the

parties’ administrative motions as stated in the tables below. To the extent their motions are

denied, each movant shall file revised versions of their documents consistent with this order on

the public docket by DECEMBER 6 at NOON.

* * *

LIST OF ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS.

DKT. NO. DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED RULING

66-4 Declaration of Andrew J. Dressel The supporting declaration fails to show

particularized good cause because it

merely concludes in generic terms that

this information was designated as

confidential under a previous protective

order. Moreover, this request has not

been narrowly tailored as required by

Civil Local Rule 79-5 and is

accordingly DENIED.
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

3

66-6 Exhibit A The supporting declaration fails to show

particularized good cause because it

merely concludes in generic terms that

this information was designated as

confidential under a previous protective

order. Aside from defining terms, the

document does not disclose data that

might harm Uber’s competitive

advantage. Moreover, this request has

not been narrowly tailored as required

by Civil Local Rule 79-5 and is

accordingly DENIED.

66-8 Exhibit B The supporting declaration fails to show

particularized good cause because it

merely concludes in generic terms that

this information was designated as

confidential under a previous protective

order. It is unclear how the disclosure

of this information might harm Uber’s

competitive advantage, nor is there any

private driver identification information. 

Moreover, this request has not been

narrowly tailored as required by Civil

Local Rule 79-5 and is accordingly

DENIED.

66-10 Exhibit C Since the underlying motion and its

final disposition remain attenuated from

the merits, the public has little interest

in the sealing of this information. The

supporting declaration, however, fails to

show particularized good cause because

it merely concludes in generic terms

that this information was designated as

confidential under a previous protective

order. It is unclear how the disclosure

of the Uber’s driver fees (already

publically known) might harm Uber’s

competitive advantage. Moreover, this

request has not been narrowly tailored

as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5

and is accordingly DENIED.

70-4 Portions of Uber’s Opposition to Class

Certification. 

Good cause warrants sealing of the

portion at page 7: 1–17 to prevent the

disclosure of Uber’s underlying

analysis. This justification does not,

however, extend to other portions which

describe the facts important to the

overall case. It is unclear how

disclosure of — for example — various

payouts under plaintiff’s theory would

harm Uber’s competitive advantage. 

This request is GRANTED IN PART and

DENIED IN PART. 
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

4

70-5 Entirety of Jason Dowlatabadi

declaration.

The supporting declaration avers that

disclosure of some information in this

declaration could allow competitors to

imitate or disrupt Uber’s business

arrangements. While that risk seems

minimal with respect to the particular

information contained therein, the

public’s interest in said information also

remains minimal. Under these

circumstances, sufficient good cause

has been shown to justify sealing. This

request is GRANTED.

70-6 Entirety of exhibit A to Declaration

of Jason Dowlatabadi.

The supporting declaration fails to show

particularized good cause because it

merely concludes in generic terms that

this information was designated as

confidential under a previous protective

order. Aside from defining terms, the

document does not disclose data that

might harm Uber’s competitive

advantage. Moreover, this request has

not been narrowly tailored as required

by Civil Local Rule 79-5 and is

accordingly DENIED.

70-7 Entirety of exhibit F to Declaration

of Randall W. Edwards.

The supporting declaration fails to show

particularized good cause as it merely

states that the document might be sealed

“out of an abundance of caution” in

case the plaintiff wishes to seek sealing. 

In light of the preference for more

access to information and because this

request has not been narrowly tailored

as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5,

this request is DENIED.

70-8 Entirety of exhibit G to Declaration

of Randall W. Edwards.

Good cause warrants the sealing of the

entire document to prevent disclosure of

private employee contact information

and confidential internal information. 

This request is GRANTED. 

70-9 Entirety of exhibit H to Declaration

of Randall W. Edwards.

Good cause warrants the sealing of the

entire document to prevent disclosure of

private employee contact information

and confidential internal information. 

This request is GRANTED. 
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

5

70-10 Entirety of exhibit I to Declaration of

Randall W. Edwards.

The supporting declaration fails to show

particularized good cause as it merely

states that the document might be sealed

“out of an abundance of caution” in

case the plaintiff wishes to seek sealing. 

In light of the preference for more

access to information and because this

request has not been narrowly tailored

as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5,

this request is DENIED.

70-11

Entirety of exhibit K to Declaration

of Randall W. Edwards.

The supporting declaration fails to show

particularized good cause to seal this

document. The information contained

in exhibit K merely aggregates total

payment and does not disclose

proprietary variables. This request is

DENIED.

70-13 Portions of exhibit L to Declaration

of Randall W. Edwards. 

Good cause warrants sealing of page 9

FN 28 to prevent the disclosure of

Uber’s underlying analysis. This

justification does not, however, extend

to other portions of this exhibit which

merely describe the facts important to

the overall case. It is unclear how

disclosure of vague statements that

certain percentages of drivers would be

better or worse off under competing

interpretations of the agreement would

harm Uber’s competitive advantage. 

This request is GRANTED IN PART and

DENIED IN PART. 

72-4

Portions of reply in further support of

motion for class certification and

appointment of class counsel.

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. The

supporting declaration fails to show

particularized good cause to seal this

document as it merely states that the

information is designated as

confidential. This request is DENIED. 
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

6

72-8 Entirety of exhibit 2, Dulberg

deposition dated January 4, 2018.

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. The

supporting declaration fails to show

particularized good cause to seal this

document as it merely states that the

information is designated as

confidential. Moreover, this request has

not been narrowly tailored as required

by Civil Local Rule 79-5 and is

accordingly DENIED.

72-12 Entirety of declaration of Andrew J.

Dressel.

Good cause warrants sealing of

paragraphs six and seven to prevent the

disclosure of Uber’s underlying

analysis. This justification does not,

however, extend to other portions of the

declaration as they pertain to data in

general that would not harm Uber’s

competitive advantage. This request is

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN

PART. 

72-13 Entirety of exhibit A to declaration

of Andrew J. Dressel.

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. The

supporting declaration fails to show

particularized good cause to seal this

document as it merely states that the

information is designated as

confidential. It is unclear how ride data,

without any disclosure of the analysis

behind it, would harm Uber’s

competitive advantage. Moreover, this

request has not been narrowly tailored

as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5

and is accordingly DENIED.

106-4 Portions of exhibit 3 to declaration of

Paul B. Maslo.

Good cause warrants the sealing of the

portions identified to prevent disclosure

of Uber’s underlying calculations. This

request is GRANTED. 

106-6 Portions of exhibit 4 to declaration of

Paul B. Maslo.

Good cause warrants the sealing of the

portions identified to prevent disclosure

of Uber’s underlying calculations. This

request is GRANTED. 
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

7

106-8 Portions of exhibit 5 to declaration of

Paul B. Maslo.

Good cause warrants sealing of page 4

FN 1 to prevent the disclosure of Uber’s

underlying analysis. This justification

does not, however, extend to other

portions of the declaration. This request

is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN

PART. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 20, 2018. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE