Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 118 Filed 05/02/22 Page 1 of 6
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`LYFT, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
`AGIS SOFTWARE’S SEALING
`MOTION; GRANTING PLAINTIFF
`LYFT, INC.’S MOTION TO CONSIDER
`WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY’S
`MATERIAL SHOULD BE SEALED;
`DENYING PLAINTIFF LYFT, INC.’S
`SEALING MOTION
`
`[Re: ECF Nos. 93, 108, 109]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before the Court are (1) Defendant AGIS Software Development LLC’s (“AGIS Software”)
`
`administrative motion to seal documents filed with its Opposition to Plaintiff Lyft, Inc.’s (“Lyft”)
`
`Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 93); (2) Lyft’s administrative motion
`
`to consider whether another party’s material should be sealed in connection with its Reply in support
`
`of its Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 108); and (3) Lyft’s
`
`administrative motion to seal information in its Reply in support of its Motion for Leave to File First
`
`Amended Complaint (ECF No. 109). All three motions are unopposed.
`
`Based on the below reasoning, the Court GRANTS AGIS Software’s sealing motion at
`
`ECF No. 93 and Lyft’s motion to consider whether another party’s material should be sealed at
`
`ECF No. 108. Further, the Court DENIES Lyft’s motion to seal at ECF No. 109.
`
`I. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and
`
`documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu,
`
`447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589,
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 118 Filed 05/02/22 Page 2 of 6
`
`
`
`597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are “more than
`
`tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling
`
`reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101–02 (9th Cir.
`
`2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing
`
`of “good cause.” Id. at 1097.
`
`In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local
`
`Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a
`
`document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that
`
`warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive
`
`alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1)(i). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5
`
`requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.”
`
`Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1)(ii).
`
`Furthermore, when a party (the “Moving Party”) seeks to seal a document that has been
`
`designated as confidential by another party or non-party (the “Designating Party”), the Moving Party
`
`must file a Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed under Local
`
`Rule 79-5(f). The Moving Party must file a motion “identify[ing] each document or portions thereof
`
`for which sealing is sought.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(1). “Within 7 days of the motion’s filing, the
`
`Designating Party must file a statement and/or declaration as described in [Civil Local
`
`Rule 79-5(c)(1)].” Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3). “If any party wishes to file a response, it must do so no
`
`later than 4 days after the Designating Party files its statement and/or declaration.”
`
`Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(4).
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`Because the parties’ sealing motions pertain to a motion for leave to file an amended
`
`complaint, the Court finds that the “good cause” standard applies. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d
`
`at 1097.
`
`The Court has reviewed the sealing motions. The Court finds that AGIS Software has shown
`
`good cause to file under seal the documents and portions of documents containing AGIS Software’s
`
`confidential information given the sensitive financial and business information they contain.
`
`2
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 118 Filed 05/02/22 Page 3 of 6
`
`
`
`See, e.g., In re Electronic Arts, 298 Fed.Appx. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding compelling reasons
`
`for sealing “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive strategy”); In re Google
`
`Location Hist. Litig., 514 F.Supp.3d 1147, 1162 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (“Compelling reasons may exist
`
`to seal ‘trade secrets, marketing strategies, product development plans, detailed product-specific
`
`financial information, customer information, internal reports[.]’”) (quoting In re Apple Inc. Device
`
`Performance Litig., No. 5:19–MD–02827–EJD, 2019 WL 1767158, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr.
`
`22, 2019)); Krieger v. Atheros Commc’ns, Inc., No. 11–CV–00640–LHK, 2011 WL 2550831, at *1
`
`(N.D. Cal. Jun. 25, 2011) (granting sealing request of “long-term financial projections, discussions
`
`of business strategy, and competitive analyses”). However, as outlined below, the Court finds that
`
`Lyft has failed to show good cause as to its sealing motion related to the amount of attorneys’ fees
`
`sought in a concurrent action in the Eastern District of Texas. See ECF No. 109.
`
`The Court rules as follows on the parties’ sealing motions:
`
`
`
`Sealing
`Motion
`
`ECF No. 93,
`AGIS
`Software’s
`Motion to Seal
`
`ECF No. 93,
`AGIS
`Software’s
`Motion to Seal
`
`ECF No. 108,
`Lyft’s Motion
`to Consider
`Whether
`Another Party’s
`Material
`Should Be
`
`Document
`Sought to Be
`Sealed
`ECF No. 94,
`AGIS
`Software’s
`Response in
`Opposition to
`Lyft’s Motion
`for Leave to
`File First
`Amended
`Complaint
`ECF No. 94,
`Ex. 1, 30(b)(6)
`Deposition
`Transcript of
`Thomas
`Meriam
`ECF No. 107,
`Lyft’s Reply in
`Support of its
`Motion for
`Leave to File
`First Amended
`Complaint
`
`Portions
`Sought to Be
`Sealed
`Highlighted
`portions at:
`• Page 5,
`lines 8–25;
`• Page 6,
`lines 1–15,
`10–12,
`14–18,
`23–26
`
`Entire
`Document
`
`Highlighted
`portions at:
`• Page 4,
`lines 15–
`21, 22–27;
`• Page 5,
`lines 1–2,
`
`3
`
`Decl. ISO
`Sealing
`
`Rubino Decl.,
`ECF No. 93-1
`at 1–2
`
`Ruling
`
`GRANTED, as
`confidential business,
`financial, and licensing
`information of AGIS
`Software.
`
`Rubino Decl.,
`ECF No. 93-1
`at 2
`
`Rubino Decl.,
`ECF No. 87
`at 3–4
`
`GRANTED, as
`confidential business,
`financial, and licensing
`information of AGIS
`Software.
`
`GRANTED, as
`confidential business,
`financial, and licensing
`information of AGIS
`Software.
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 118 Filed 05/02/22 Page 4 of 6
`
`Decl. ISO
`Sealing
`
`Ruling
`
`Rubino Decl.,
`ECF No. 87
`at 4; Rubino
`Decl.,
`ECF No. 93-1
`at 2; Rubino
`Decl.,
`ECF No. 86
`at 3
`Salpietra Decl.,
`ECF No. 109-1
`at 1–2
`
`GRANTED, as
`confidential business,
`financial, and licensing
`information of AGIS
`Software.
`
`Lyft moves to seal the
`amount of attorneys’
`fees sought in a
`concurrent action in the
`Eastern District of
`Texas because
`“[d]isclosure of this
`information could
`cause competitive harm
`to Lyft by providing an
`incomplete and
`misleading picture of
`the nature and
`magnitude of legal fees
`expended for the
`EDTX Action in view
`of the fact that Lyft is
`seeking only a limited
`amount of its overall
`fees.” See Salpietra
`Decl., ECF No. 109-1
`at 2–3. The Court
`disagrees with Lyft that
`disclosing the amount
`of attorneys’ fees it
`seeks in the concurrent
`action could cause it
`competitive harm
`sufficient for a showing
`of good cause. See In
`
`
`
`Sealing
`Motion
`
`Sealed
`
`Document
`Sought to Be
`Sealed
`
`ECF No. 108,
`Lyft’s Motion
`to Consider
`Whether
`Another Party’s
`Material
`Should Be
`Sealed
`
`ECF No. 109,
`Lyft’s Motion
`to Seal
`
`ECF No. 107,
`Ex. 13,
`30(b)(6)
`Deposition
`Transcript of
`Thomas
`Meriam
`
`ECF No. 107,
`Lyft’s Reply in
`Support of its
`Motion for
`Leave to File
`First Amended
`Complaint
`
`Portions
`Sought to Be
`Sealed
`24–27;
`• Page 6,
`lines 2–3;
`• Page 8,
`lines 1–2,
`10–11
`Entire
`Document
`
`Highlighted
`portions at:
`• Page 5,
`line 11
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 118 Filed 05/02/22 Page 5 of 6
`
`Sealing
`Motion
`
`Document
`Sought to Be
`Sealed
`
`Portions
`Sought to Be
`Sealed
`
`Decl. ISO
`Sealing
`
`Ruling
`
`re Anthem, Inc. Data
`Breach Litig., No.
`15–MD–02617–LHK,
`2018 WL 3067783,
`at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar.
`16, 2018) (sealing
`request related to
`attorneys’ fees motion
`was narrowly tailored
`because it did not seek
`to seal aggregate
`amount of attorneys’
`fees sought); see also
`Adtrader, Inc. v.
`Google LLC, No.
`17–cv–07082–BLF,
`2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`71651, at **4–6 (N.D.
`Cal. Mar. 24, 2020)
`(granting sealing
`motion as to different
`kinds of information in
`attorneys’ fees motion).
`Accordingly, the Court
`DENIES Lyft’s request
`to seal this information.
`
`5
`
`
`
` /
`
` / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 118 Filed 05/02/22 Page 6 of 6
`
`
`
`III. ORDER
`
`For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`AGIS Software’s sealing motion at ECF No. 93 is GRANTED;
`
`Lyft’s motion to consider whether another party’s material should be sealed at
`
`ECF No. 108 is GRANTED;
`
`Lyft’s sealing motion at ECF No. 109 is DENIED; and
`
`Lyft SHALL file newly redacted versions of ECF No. 107, per the above, on or
`
`before May 9, 2022.
`
`Dated: May 2, 2022
`
`
`
`______________________________________
`BETH LABSON FREEMAN
`United States District Judge
`
`6
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`