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

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

WAYMO’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 

 Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151) 

 charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com 

 David A. Perlson (Bar No. 209502) 

 davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com 

 Melissa Baily (Bar No. 237649) 

 melissabaily@quinnemanuel.com 

 John Neukom (Bar No. 275887) 

 johnneukom@quinnemanuel.com 

 Jordan Jaffe (Bar No. 254886) 

 jordanjaffe@quinnemanuel.com 

50 California Street, 22nd Floor 

San Francisco, California 94111-4788 

Telephone: (415) 875-6600 

Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 

Attorneys for WAYMO LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

WAYMO LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; 

OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO TRUCKING 

LLC, 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 

PLAINTIFF WAYMO LLC’S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF ITS 

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION 

FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, 

SUPPORTING DECLARATIONS, AND 

SUPPORTING EXHIBITS THERETO

 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245 Filed 04/21/17 Page 1 of 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

-2- CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

WAYMO’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-11 and 79-5, Plaintiff Waymo LLC (“Waymo”) respectfully 

requests to file under seal confidential information in portions of its Reply in Support of Its 

Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, declarations filed in support thereof, and supporting exhibits 

thereto (collectively “PI Reply”). Specifically, Waymo requests an order granting leave to file 

under seal the portions of the document as listed below: 

Document Portions to Be Filed 

Under Seal 

Designating Party 

Waymo’s Reply in Support of 

Motion for a Preliminary 

Injunction 

Highlighted Portions Waymo (green 

highlighting); 

Uber1

 (blue 

highlighting) 

Exhibits 64-66, 82-84, and 90 to 

the Declaration of Jordan Jaffe 

(“Jaffe Decl.”) 

Green Highlighted 

Portions 

Waymo 

Exhibits 65-67, 84, and 91 to the 

Jaffe Decl. 

Blue Highlighted 

Portions 

Uber 

Exhibits 61-64, 68-78, 80-83, 85-

88, 92-101, 104-107, 109-110 to 

the Jaffe Decl. 

Entire Documents Uber 

Declaration of Gregory Kintz 

(“Kintz Decl.”) 

Highlighted Portions Waymo (green 

highlighting); 

Uber (blue highlighting) 

I. LEGAL STANDARD 

Civil Local Rule 79-5 requires that a party seeking sealing “establish[] that the document, or 

portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under 

the law” (i.e., is “sealable”). Civil L.R. 79-5(b). The sealing request must also “be narrowly tailored 

to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Id. In the context of non-dispositive motions, materials 

may be sealed so long as the party seeking sealing makes a “particularized showing” under the “good 

cause” standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Kamkana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 

F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co., 331 F.3d 

1122, 1135, 1138 (9th Cir. 2003)). Both the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the Defend 

Trade Secrets Act provide for maintaining the confidentiality of alleged trade secrets. Cal. Civ. Code 

 

1

 “Uber” means Uber Technologies, Inc., Ottomotto LLC, and Otto Trucking LLC, collectively. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245 Filed 04/21/17 Page 2 of 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

-3- CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

WAYMO’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

§ 3426.5 (“In an action under this title, a court shall preserve the secrecy of an alleged trade secret by 

reasonable means, which may include . . . sealing the records of the action[.]”); 18 U.S.C. § 1835(a)

(“[T]he court shall enter such orders and take such other action as may be necessary and appropriate to 

preserve the confidentiality of trade secrets[.]”). 

II. THE COURT SHOULD SEAL WAYMO’S CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION 

The Court should seal the portions of the PI Reply (portions highlighted green), Exhibits 64-

66, 82-84, & 90 (portions highlighted green), and the Kintz Decl. (portions highlighted green) 

identified by Waymo in the table above. Waymo seeks to file this information under seal because it 

discloses Waymo’s trade secrets and confidential business information. See Declaration of Lindsay 

Cooper (“Cooper Decl.”), ¶¶ 3-4. Courts have determined that trade secret information merits sealing. 

Music Grp. Macao Commercial Offshore Ltd. v. Foote, No. 14–cv–03078–JSC, 2015 WL 3993147, at 

*1 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179); see also Brocade Commc’ns 

Sys., Inc. v. A10 Networks, Inc., No. C 10-3428 PSG, 2013 WL 211115, at *1, *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 

2013) (granting request to seal document that “consists entirely of descriptions of Brocade’s trade 

secrets.”). Confidential business information that, if released, may “harm a litigant’s competitive 

standing” also merits sealing. See Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598-99 (1978). 

Waymo seeks to seal confidential business information and trade secret information that fit squarely 

within these categories. Cooper Decl. ¶¶ 3-5. Waymo maintains this information as a trade secret 

(see Dkt. 25-31) and ensures the information remains secret with strict secrecy and security protocols 

(see Dkt. 25-47; Dkt. 25-49.). See Cooper Decl. ¶ 4. Waymo has narrowly tailored its requests to 

only information meriting sealing. Id. ¶ 5. In fact, both Music Grp. and Brocade found the 

confidential information at issue in those cases met the heightened “compelling reasons” standard for 

sealing. Music Grp., 2015 WL 3993147, at *1; Brocade, 2013 WL 211115, at *1, *3. The 

information that Waymo seeks to seal, therefore, also meets this heightened standard. The disclosure 

of Waymo’s trade secret and confidential business information would harm Waymo (Cooper Decl. ¶ 

4), and, thus, the Court should grant Waymo’s administrative motion to seal. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245 Filed 04/21/17 Page 3 of 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

-4- CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA

WAYMO’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

III. UBER’S CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION 

Waymo only seeks to seal the portions of the PI Reply (highlighted blue), Exhibits 65-67, 84, 

& 91 (at portions highlighted in blue), and Exhibits 61-64, 68-78, 80-83, 85-88, 92-101, 104-107, & 

109-110 as identified in the table above, because Waymo believes such information is considered 

confidential or non-public by Uber. Cooper Decl. ¶ 6. Waymo has designated its confidential 

information (highlighted in green) for Exhibits 64-66 and 82-84, but Waymo seeks to seal the entire 

document, out of an abundance of caution, because the time period for Uber to designate its material 

has not passed. Similarly, Uber has stated that it does not consider its privilege logs confidential 

(Exhibits 61-63), but does not want its clients’ email addresses made public. Accordingly, Waymo 

has filed the exhibits completely under seal so that Uber could determine which email address, if any,

merited sealing. Waymo takes no position as to the merits of sealing any Uber designated material, 

and expects Uber to file a declaration in accordance with the Local Rules. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

In compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), redacted and unredacted versions of the above 

listed documents accompany this Administrative Motion. For the foregoing reasons, Waymo 

respectfully requests that the Court grant Waymo’s administrative motion to file under seal. 

DATED: April 21, 2017 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, 

LLP 

By /s/ Charles K. Verhoeven

Charles K. Verhoeven 

Attorneys for WAYMO LLC 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 245 Filed 04/21/17 Page 4 of 4