Source: https://ja.scribd.com/document/254228914/Unsealed-exhibits-in-driver-lawsuit-against-Uber
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 12:11:48+00:00

Document:
28 Inc. The 22 Court has reviewed those declarations. See 27 Kamakana v. at *1-2 (N. ___________________________________/ ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL (Docket No.Case3:13-cv-03826-EMC Document237 Filed01/27/15 Page1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 DOUGLAS O’CONNOR. Local Rule 79-5(e)(1). As required by this 19 Court’s Local Rules. see also Apple. 221) 13 14 15 On December 30. For the Northern District of California 10 United States District Court No. 11-cv-1846-LHK. 221. 224-25 (Supporting Declarations). v. C-13-3826 EMC v. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to Defendant Uber Technologies’ 16 currently pending summary judgment motion. 11 UBER TECHNOLOGIES. 1178-79 (9th Cir. See Docket Nos. 9 Plaintiffs.D.. Cal. Docket Nos. et al. 2012 WL 2913669.. the parties that designated the relevant materials as confidential pursuant to a 20 stipulated protective order timely filed declarations in support of Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to 21 seal. 211 (Summary Judgment Motion). 12 Defendants. INC. and now grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs’ 23 administrative motion to file under seal. No. of Honolulu. Docket No. Ltd. Cal. 2006). 447 F.. . Samsung Electronics Co. Plaintiffs also filed an administrative motion to seal 18 certain discovery materials attached to their opposition.. 2014. 17 222 (Opposition to Summary Judgment). see also N. et al.D. 25 Applicable Legal Standard A party seeking to seal a judicial record submitted in connection with a dispositive motion 26 bears the burden of establishing that “compelling reasons” support the sealing request.3d 1172. 24 A.. City and Cnty.
447 F. or release trade secrets. 2012). 12 “In general. 23 B. 15 circulate libelous statements.” Kamakana. 589. The compelling 10 reasons standard continues to apply. promote public scandal. No. Google. 10-cv-03561-WHA. “The presumption of access is not rebutted where documents subject 9 to a protective order are filed under seal as attachments to a dispositive motion. at *2 (emphasis added). Apple.” Id. 27 Uber maintains that Exhibit 21 “contain[s] commercially valuable information regarding past 28 issues with the functionality of the Uber driver application and Uber’s strategies and procedures that Exhibit 21 2 . Inc. at ECF No. this Court must “base its decision on a compelling 7 reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling. Warner 16 Communications. the party seeking to maintain records under seal must “articulate 2 compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access 3 and the public policies favoring disclosure [of court records]. Inc. without relying on hypothesis or conjecture. such as the public interest in 4 understanding the judicial process. In order to grant a motion to seal documents when 6 applying the “compelling reasons” standard. 435 U. ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure 13 and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for 14 improper purposes. “only documents of exceptionally sensitive 19 information” will be kept from the public.For the Northern District of California United States District Court Case3:13-cv-03826-EMC Document237 Filed01/27/15 Page2 of 7 1 Jul. 598 (1978)). see 20 also Oracle America v. as a 18 number of courts in this district have suggested. More specifically. at 1179 (citations omitted)..3d at 1178-79 (internal modifications and 5 quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted). The “mere fact that the production of records 17 may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment” will not compel the court to seal its records. 17. Or. Id. 2012 WL 2913669. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. 540 (noting that sealing 21 motions “will be denied outright” unless counsel identified “a limited amount of exceptionally 22 sensitive information that truly deserves protection”). at 1179 (internal modifications and quotation marks 11 omitted) (citations omitted). 24 25 Application of the Compelling Reasons Standard The Court now applies the above-described standard to the discovery materials sought to be sealed in Plaintiffs’ administrative motion: 26 1.’ such as the use of the records to gratify private spite.” Id.S.” 8 Id..
2008) (finding that a 16 non-party’s privacy interest in information with “little or no relevance to the issues raised by [the] 17 summary judgment motions” is sufficient to satisfy the compelling reasons standard). the Court denies the request to seal Exhibit 21. 11. The Court recognizes the non-party’s privacy interests. the public’s interest in the substance of the communications is likely greater. 225. as 21 the substance is relevant to analyzing the merits of Uber’s pending summary judgment motion. causing him to allegedly 5 receive smaller payments than he believed he was entitled to. .Case3:13-cv-03826-EMC Document237 Filed01/27/15 Page3 of 7 1 it developed to address those issues. See.g. Geico General 15 Insurance Co. e. nothing about Exhibit 21 rises to the 9 level of a trade secret or commercially valuable information. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 1 28 Indeed. See 22 id.D. C06-4898 MJJ. 221-5. the Court has doubts Exhibit 21 would be sealable even under the “good cause” standard that applies to discovery materials that are not submitted along with dispositive pleadings. Redaction of 18 identifying information is particularly appropriate here.” Docket No.” Docket No. Cal. The document 3 contains a series of emails between an Uber driver and a (presumably low level) Uber employee 4 regarding the driver’s claimed issues with the Uber application freezing. Exhibit 21 shall be filed on the 23 public docket with the driver’s name and personal identifying information redacted. associated with Verizon’s network connection and 8 are out of Uber’s control. 2008 WL 867372. and finds 13 that such an interest can be appropriately balanced with the public’s right to access by redacting 14 personal identifying information from Exhibit 21. at *2 (N. who is clearly identified by name and whose account was 12 deactivated. This 2 representation appears inaccurate. 3 . 225 (Uber Supporting Declaration). The Court has reviewed Exhibit 21 in its entirety. Uber’s apparently “commercially 6 valuable strategy” in response to this functionality “issue” was to inform the driver that such 7 occurrences “are often due to network errors .. G&C Auto Body Inc. Mar. No.. By contrast. as the exact name is irrelevant to the legal issues in this 20 case. .” Docket No. v.1 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Uber also maintains that Exhibit 21 is sealable because it contains “potentially embarrassing 11 facts about a non-party to this litigation. Put simply. because the public’s interest in the name of 19 the terminated driver is likely insignificant. Consequently.
Once again. Uber’s description appears false. and the Court is convinced that it is not. Thus. 221-7. at *2. 5 months. 17 However.2 Exhibit 23 is a 11 spreadsheet listing drivers who were “fired” from the Uber platform or otherwise received 12 performance warnings from Uber.” Again. low rating. 4 . but even if it is. 13 english level. Uber does once again properly recognize the non-party drivers’ privacy interests in 18 the reasons for their termination--some of which are potentially embarrassing. Another simply states “Deactivated for inactivity. Exhibit 25 contains two emails with the subject “ANOTHER 26 2 27 28 Uber’s counsel are warned that submitting inaccurate or misleading statements to the Court in a declaration is sanctionable conduct that will not be condoned or tolerated.3 21 4. 5 Exhibit 22 shall be filed on the public docket. Nor is the information 16 exceptionally sensitive. and technological capabilities that it 24 developed to bolster its competitiveness against other similar technology companies. one driver is listed as “deactivating.3d at 1179. the 19 parties shall file the relevant exhibit on the public document with driver identifying information 20 redacted. and who is identified by name. 7 3.Case3:13-cv-03826-EMC Document237 Filed01/27/15 Page4 of 7 1 2. it should likely be sufficient to simply redact the drivers’ last names.” Docket No. Here. 447 F. policies. 3 Here.” Uber 4 does not otherwise contend Exhibit 22 is sealable. that appears to be the individual’s email address. 22 Uber contends that Exhibit 25 is sealable because it includes “commercially valuable. This type of information does not appear commercially sensitive.” This 25 representation is seriously misleading. For example. but with the driver’s personal identifying information 6 redacted. 2012 WL 2913669. non- Exhibit 25 23 public information regarding Uber’s strategies.” 14 Id. See Kamakana. See Apple. it certainly 15 does not amount to a trade secret. 8 Uber contends Exhibit 23 is sealable because it contains “commercially valuable information For the Northern District of California 9 United States District Court Exhibit 22 Exhibit 23 regarding Uber’s strategies and procedures developed to improve its competitiveness against other 10 similar technology companies. 2 Uber claims Exhibit 22 is sealable because it contains “potentially embarrassing facts about a 3 non-party to this litigation whose account was deactivated.
I love it. the Court will order Uber to redact the 27 relevant driver’s email address for privacy reasons. See Docket 24 No. Docket No. in its entirety: 3 “Done via phone! Remote banning -. However.3d at 9 1179. The Court notes that. In any event.” Docket No. based on the average rating they have received from passengers or a 26 pattern of serious complaints from passengers”). policies and procedures. 16 6. This is not grounds to 7 seal Exhibit 26. Kamakana. The Court does not believe this is a “trade 22 secret” or otherwise “exceptionally sensitive” information. The second email reads. Moreover. 17 Uber claims Exhibit 27 “contains commercially valuable information regarding Uber’s Exhibit 27 18 strategies. an employee’s use of the “f- 14 word” in a business communication is not so shocking in today’s world to warrant sealing of this 15 document. the employee is not a true non-party to this 12 litigation--he is employed by a party to this action and the communication was sent from his 13 business email account in the scope of his employment. the “mere fact that the production of records may lead to a 8 litigant’s embarrassment” will not compel the court to seal its records. Again. the coarse language used by the employee here is relevant to the issues to be 11 decided in this summary judgment motion. This document is clearly not sealable. 221-10. by contrast to the driver’s names which the Court will require Uber to 10 redact in other exhibits. 211 at 4 (explaining that Uber may “deactivate the accounts of drivers who fall below 25 Defendant’s quality standards.” Id. We need to make 2 some serious cuts of guys below 4. in its entirety: “Get rid of this guy. Exhibit 19 27 is an email terminating a driver because Uber’s business was then “slower than normal. The request is denied. 225. Uber admits in its publically 23 filed summary judgment motion that it terminates drivers based on customer feedback. the Court is not convinced.” Docket No. 5 Uber asks the Court to seal Exhibit 26 because it contains an email where an Uber employee Exhibit 26 6 uses “coarse language” which could potentially embarrass that employee.” The first email reads.” and 20 explaining that Uber looks to terminate drivers in the bottom 5% of its active driver pool as 21 determined by customer feedback. As noted above. 447 F. 4 5. again noting that the email address is not 28 5 . 221-8. Indeed.5.For the Northern District of California United States District Court Case3:13-cv-03826-EMC Document237 Filed01/27/15 Page5 of 7 1 TERRIBLE DRIVER.
The Court has reviewed 9 the exhibit and is not convinced this is the case.. 7x7’s request to seal this 18 specific information is granted. The Court agrees that 7x7’s pricing structure and pricing negotiations 16 could be considered trade secrets. 7x7 argues the materials contain 23 proprietary mnemonic devices and other training techniques that are commercially sensitive. 7x7’s counsel filed a declaration averring that portions of Exhibit 32 contain 14 confidential information regarding such information as 7x7’s product pricing. All other information shall be publically filed.For the Northern District of California United States District Court Case3:13-cv-03826-EMC Document237 Filed01/27/15 Page6 of 7 1 relevant to any of the issues in this litigation. a non-party that trains Uber drivers and which produced the emails pursuant to a 13 document subpoena. 3 7. Docket No. 11 Exhibit 32 is a series of emails between employees of Uber and 7x7 Executive Exhibit 32 12 Transportation.” Docket No. Specifically. 7x7 may redact the very last paragraph on Bates page 19 454. Moreover. Thus. and further finds that such information is minimally relevant (if at 17 all) to the issues raised in Uber’s summary judgment motion. and paragraph number three on Bates page 453. 15 221-12 at Bates page 453. Again. nor would the public have any real interest in its 2 disclosure.” 7 Uber does not point to specific facts that indicate that the questions (notably provided without 8 answers) here are so sensitive to rise to the level of a trade secret or similar.g. 225. The 24 Court has reviewed the exhibit and concludes that the public’s interest in its disclosure outweighs 25 7x7’s interest in maintaining the secrecy of the exhibit. See. 20 9. the Court notes that unlike other 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 6 . e. 6 Uber claims these materials are sealable because they contain “commercially valuable information. The request to seal Exhibit 30 is denied. 10 8. 21 Exhibit 33 contains training materials (largely in the form of a 26 question quiz without the Exhibit 33 22 corresponding answers) developed by 7x7 transportation. 4 Exhibit 30 is a 22 question multiple choice exam Uber apparently uses to test its drivers’ Exhibit 30 5 “city knowledge and understanding of the functionality of the Uber App.
2015 8 _________________________ EDWARD M. Thus.Case3:13-cv-03826-EMC Document237 Filed01/27/15 Page7 of 7 1 non-party materials this Court will permit to be filed under seal. 221. 7x7’s request to seal Exhibit 33 is denied. these materials are directly relevant 2 to the issues at the very heart of Uber’s summary judgment motion--namely. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 This order disposes of Docket No. CHEN United States District Judge 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 . the level of control 3 Uber exercised over its drivers’ work. 6 7 Dated: January 27.
Super Resolution Technologies v. Carl Zeiss Microscopy Et. Al.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.