UBER AND OTTO’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING-IN-PART ADMIN. MOT. TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL - Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 

dc-879931 

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 

MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)

MJacobs@mofo.com 

ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ (CA SBN 121490) 

AGonzalez@mofo.com 

ERIC A. TATE (CA SBN 178719) 

ETate@mofo.com 

RUDY Y. KIM (CA SBN 199426) 

RudyKim@mofo.com 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

425 Market Street 

San Francisco, California 94105-2482 

Telephone: 415.268.7000 

Facsimile: 415.268.7522 

KAREN L. DUNN (Pro Hac Vice) 

kdunn@bsfllp.com 

HAMISH P.M. HUME (Pro Hac Vice) 

hhume@bsfllp.com 

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 

1401 New York Avenue, N.W. 

Washington DC 20005 

Telephone: 202.237.2727 

Facsimile: 202.237.6131 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

and OTTOMOTTO LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

WAYMO LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO TRUCKING LLC, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND 

OTTOMOTTO LLC’S MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER 

DENYING-IN-PART 

ADMINSTRATIVE MOTIONS TO 

FILE UNDER SEAL (DKT. NO. 550) 

Date: July 20, 2017 

Time: 9:00 a.m. 

Ctrm: F, 15th Floor 

Judge: Hon. Jacqueline Scott Corley 

Trial Date: October 2, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 600 Filed 06/12/17 Page 1 of 4
UBER AND OTTO’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING-IN-PART ADMIN. MOT. TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL - Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 1

dc-879931 

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 

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on July 20, 2017, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the 

matter may be heard, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 

San Francisco Courthouse, located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA, in 

Courtroom 8 before the Honorable Jacqueline Scott Corley, Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., 

and Ottomotto LLC (“Uber”) will, and hereby do, jointly move the Court, for an order granting 

the relief sought in its motion for reconsideration of the Court’s June 5, 2017 Order Denying In 

Part Administrative Motions to File Under Seal (“Order”), Docket No. 550. Specifically, Uber 

seeks an order: 

1. Sealing portions of pages 12-13 of Exhibit 10 to the Schmidt Declaration (Dkt. 

444-6) containing personal addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses of Anthony 

Levandowski and Lior Ron (Yang Ex. 1 at 12-13 ¶¶ 3.8(b)-(e)); and 

2. Sealing portions of pages 8-9 of Exhibit 10 to the Schmidt Declaration (Dkt. 444-

6) containing financial and timing terms for which the Court granted sealing in the draft Term 

Sheet (Id. at 8 ¶ 2.3(a) (timing terms); 8-9 ¶¶ 2.5(a)-(b) (financial terms)). (See Dkt. 550 at 3). 

For the Court’s convenience, Uber has marked the portions subject to this motion in 

Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Michelle Yang. 

Uber’s motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the accompanying 

Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and the Declaration of Michelle (“Yang Declaration”), 

any matters of which this Court may take judicial notice, and on such other written and oral 

argument as may be presented to the Court. 

Dated: June 12, 2017 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/ Arturo J. González

ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

and OTTOMOTTO LLC 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 600 Filed 06/12/17 Page 2 of 4
UBER AND OTTO’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING-IN-PART ADMIN. MOT. TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL - Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 2

dc-879931 

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 

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 

Uber respectfully requests an order sealing certain personal information and financial and 

timing terms it has identified in portions of one document. Uber’s request is narrow. It 

encompasses only the following confidential information in Exhibit 10 to the Schmidt 

Declaration, an “Indemnification Agreement” (“Exhibit 10”), filed as Dkt. No. 444-6: (1) portions 

on pages 12-13 containing personal information of Anthony Levandowski and Lior Ron (Yang 

Ex. 1 at 12-13 ¶¶ 3.8(b)-(e)); and (2) portions of pages 8-9 containing financial and timing terms 

for which the Court granted sealing in draft form in Exhibit C to the Term Sheet (Id. at 8 ¶ 2.3(a) 

(timing terms); 8-9 ¶¶ 2.5(a)-(b) (financial terms)).1

The Ninth Circuit has explained that “[a] ‘good cause’ showing under Rule 26(c) will 

suffice to keep sealed records attached to non-dispositive motions.” Kamakana v. City of Cnty. of 

Honolulu, 477 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2009). In particular, good cause has been found to keep 

sealed confidential personal information such as addresses. See id. at 1184 (affirming magistrate 

judge’s sealing of home address that “could expose the officers and their families to harm or 

identity theft”); Sullivan v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., No. 2:12-cv-01173, 2012 WL 3763904 

(E.D.Cal. Aug. 29, 2012) (granting motion to seal documents “replete with confidential personal 

information, including Plaintiff’s financial information, Social Security number, address, birth 

date, and medical history”). 

The marked portions on pages 12-13 of Exhibit 10 contain the personal addresses, 

telephone numbers, and email addresses of Anthony Levandowski and Lior Ron. This case has 

been the subject of much public and media interest, and disclosure of this personal information 

could harm the privacy interests of these individuals and their families. (Yang Decl. ¶ 4.) For 

example, if these personal addresses and contact information were disclosed publicly, Messrs. 

Levandowski and Ron and their families could be exposed to harm or identity theft. (Id.) Good 

exist exists to seal this personal information. See Kamakana, 477 F.3d at 1184. 

 1

 Uber met and conferred with Waymo about this motion for reconsideration on June 12, 

2017. Waymo indicated that it did not oppose the sealing of Messrs. Levandowski and Ron’s 

personal information or the timing terms, but it opposed sealing of the financial terms. (Yang 

Decl. ¶ 5.) 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 600 Filed 06/12/17 Page 3 of 4
UBER AND OTTO’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING-IN-PART ADMIN. MOT. TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL - Case No. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 3

dc-879931 

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 

The marked portions on pages 8-9 of Exhibit 10 contain confidential financial and highly 

confidential timing terms to the Indemnification Agreement for which the Court granted sealing 

in draft form. (Compare Yang Ex. 1 at 8 ¶ 2.3(a) (timing terms); 8-9 ¶¶ 2.5(a)-(b) (financial 

terms), with Dkt. 444-5 at 51 (Exhibit C to Term Sheet).) In the June 5, 2017 Order, the Court 

granted sealing of Exhibit C to the Term Sheet with respect to (1) the “indented paragraph on 

page 2 beginning with ‘If the Closing occurs . . . .” and (2) “the timing referenced in the last 

paragraph on the same page.” (Dkt. 550 at 3.) The Court had found that this confidential 

business information merited sealing. The marked portions on pages 8-9 likewise contain 

confidential business information that could be used by competitors to Uber’s detriment, 

including in the context of negotiating deals. (Yang Decl. ¶ 3.) If this information were 

disclosed, for example, competitors could obtain a competitive advantage by offering better terms 

than Uber, such that Uber’s competitive standing would be harmed. (Id.) Good cause therefore 

exists to seal these narrow portions of the Indemnification Agreement. 

For the foregoing reasons, Uber respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion for 

reconsideration and grant the sealing of: (1) the identified portions on pages 12-13 of Exhibit 10 

containing personal information of Messrs. Levandowski and Ron; and (2) the identified portions 

of pages 8-9 of Exhibit 10 containing financial and timing terms. 

Dated: June 12, 2017 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/ Arturo J. González 

ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

and OTTOMOTTO LLC 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 600 Filed 06/12/17 Page 4 of 4