Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 91 Filed 04/07/22 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 IN PART
`ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
`FILE UNDER SEAL
`
`[Re: ECF Nos. 76, 79]
`
`Before the Court are Plaintiff Lyft, Inc.’s (“Lyft”) administrative motions to consider
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`whether another party’s material should be sealed under Civil Local Rule 79-5(f). See
`
`15
`
`ECF Nos. 76, 79. Lyft’s sealing motions pertain to documents it filed in support of its (1) Motion
`
`16
`
`to Compel Discovery and Compliance with Local Patent Rules (ECF No. 75) and (2) Motion for
`
`17
`
`Leave to File First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 78). The information at issue was designated as
`
`18
`
`confidential by Defendant AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS Software”). Lyft’s motions
`
`19
`
`are supported by declarations filed by AGIS Software. See ECF Nos. 86, 87.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Based on the below reasoning, the Court GRANTS IN PART Lyft’s administrative motions.
`
`I. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and
`
`23
`
`documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu,
`
`24
`
`447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589,
`
`25
`
`597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are “more than
`
`26
`
`tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling
`
`27
`
`reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101–02 (9th Cir.
`
`28
`
`2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 91 Filed 04/07/22 Page 2 of 6
`
`
`
`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 Lyft’s sealing motions relate to a motion to compel discovery and 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 the documents and portions of documents at issue under seal given the sensitive
`
`financial and business information they contain. 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
`
`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 91 Filed 04/07/22 Page 3 of 6
`
`
`
`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”).
`
`The Court rules as follows on Lyft’s motions to consider whether another party’s material
`
`Portions Sought to
`Be Sealed
`Highlighted portions
`at:
`• Page 2, line 13
`• Page 5, lines 5–7
`• Page 7, lines 5–6
`• Page 7, lines 8–10
`• Page 7,
`lines 16–19
`• Page 7,
`lines 19–21
`• Page 8,
`lines 24–25
`• Page 8, line 28 to
`page 9, line 6
`• Page 9, lines 6–8.
`
`ECF No. 76 at 1.
`Entire document.
`ECF No. 76 at 1.
`
`should be sealed:
`
`
`
`Document
`
`ECF No. 75, Motion
`to Compel Discovery
`and Compliance with
`Local Patent Rules
`
`ECF No. 75-1,
`Ex. 10, Defendant
`AGIS Software’s
`First Supplemental
`Objections and
`Responses to Lyft
`Inc.’s First Set of
`Jurisdictional
`Interrogatories
`
`Decl. ISO Sealing
`
`Ruling
`
`Rubino Decl.,
`ECF No. 86 at 1–2
`
`GRANTED, as
`confidential business,
`financial, and
`licensing information
`of AGIS Software.
`
`Rubino Decl.,
`ECF No. 86 at 2–3 as
`to the following
`portions:
`• Page 6, lines 4–8,
`24–27
`• Page 7, lines 1–7,
`13–17, 26–27
`• Page 8,
`lines 22–27
`• Page 9, line 1
`• Page 10,
`lines 27–28
`• Page 11,
`lines 1–11
`
`GRANTED, as
`confidential business,
`financial, and
`licensing information
`of AGIS Software,
`regarding the
`following portions:
`• Page 6, lines 4–8,
`24–27
`• Page 7, lines 1–7,
`13–17, 26–27
`• Page 8,
`lines 22–27
`• Page 9, line 1
`• Page 10,
`
`3
`
`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 91 Filed 04/07/22 Page 4 of 6
`
`
`
`Document
`
`Portions Sought to
`Be Sealed
`
`Decl. ISO Sealing
`
`Ruling
`
`• Page 12,
`lines 3–28
`• Pages 13–16
`• Page 17,
`lines 1–21
`• Page 20,
`lines 12–14,
`18–22, 23–27
`• Page 22,
`lines 14–22
`• Page 23,
`lines 15–27.
`
`Entire document.
`ECF No. 76 at 1.
`
`Rubino Decl.,
`ECF No. 86 at 3.
`
`Rubino Decl.,
`ECF No. 87 at 1–2.
`
`ECF No. 75-1,
`Ex. 18, 30(b)(6)
`Deposition Transcript
`of Thomas Meriam,
`dated March 22, 2022
`ECF No. 78, Plaintiff
`Lyft Inc.’s Motion for
`Leave to File First
`Amended Complaint
`
`ECF No. 78-1, Ex. 1,
`First Amended
`Complaint
`
`Highlighted portions
`at:
`• Page 5, lines
`6–12, 18, 23–26
`• Page 6, line 4
`• Page 7, lines
`13–14
`
`ECF No. 79 at 1.
`Highlighted portions
`at:
`• Page 4, lines
`8–10, 16–17
`• Page 5, lines
`18–22
`• Page 14, lines
`13–17
`• Page 15, lines 1,
`16–19, 25–28
`
`lines 27–28
`• Page 11,
`lines 1–11
`• Page 12,
`lines 3–28
`• Pages 13–16
`• Page 17,
`lines 1–21
`• Page 20,
`lines 12–14,
`18–22, 23–27
`• Page 22,
`lines 14–22
`• Page 23,
`lines 15–27.
`
`DENIED as to all
`other portions, as
`without evidentiary
`support from a
`declaration.
`GRANTED, as
`confidential business,
`financial, and
`licensing information
`of AGIS Software.
`GRANTED, as
`confidential business,
`financial, and
`licensing information
`of AGIS Software.
`
`Rubino Decl.,
`ECF No. 87 at 2–3 as
`to the highlighted
`portions at:
`• Page 5, lines
`18–22
`• Page 14, lines
`13–17
`• Page 15, lines
`25–28
`
`GRANTED, as
`confidential business,
`financial, and
`licensing information
`of AGIS Software,
`regarding the
`highlighted portions
`at:
`• Page 5, lines
`18–22
`• Page 14, lines
`
`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 91 Filed 04/07/22 Page 5 of 6
`
`Decl. ISO Sealing
`
`Ruling
`
`• Page 16, lines
`15–16, 20–27.
`
`Rubino Decl.,
`ECF No. 87 at 3–4 as
`to the following
`portions:
`• Page 6, lines 4–8,
`24–27
`• Page 7, lines 1–7,
`13–17, 26–27
`• Page 8,
`lines 22–27
`• Page 9, line 1
`• Page 10,
`lines 27–28
`• Page 11,
`lines 1–11
`• Page 12,
`lines 3–28
`• Pages 13–16
`• Page 17,
`lines 1–21
`• Page 20,
`lines 12–14,
`18–22, 23–27
`• Page 22,
`lines 14–22
`• Page 23,
`lines 15–27.
`
`5
`
`13–17
`• Page 15, lines
`25–28
`• Page 16, lines
`15–16, 20–27.
`
`
`DENIED, as without
`evidentiary support
`from a declaration, as
`to:
`• Page 4, lines
`8–10, 16–17
`• Page 15, lines 1,
`16–19
`• Page 17, lines
`5–7, 12–13.
`GRANTED, as
`confidential business,
`financial, and
`licensing information
`of AGIS Software,
`regarding the
`following portions:
`• Page 6, lines 4–8,
`24–27
`• Page 7, lines 1–7,
`13–17, 26–27
`• Page 8,
`lines 22–27
`• Page 9, line 1
`• Page 10,
`lines 27–28
`• Page 11,
`lines 1–11
`• Page 12,
`lines 3–28
`• Pages 13–16
`• Page 17,
`lines 1–21
`• Page 20,
`lines 12–14,
`18–22, 23–27
`• Page 22,
`lines 14–22
`• Page 23,
`
`
`
`Document
`
`Portions Sought to
`Be Sealed
`• Page 16, lines
`15–16, 20–27
`• Page 17, lines
`5–7, 12–13.
`
`
`ECF No. 79 at 1.
`
`Entire document.
`ECF No. 79 at 1–2.
`
`ECF No. 78-1, Ex. 7,
`Defendant AGIS
`Software’s First
`Supplemental
`Objections and
`Responses to Lyft
`Inc.’s First Set of
`Jurisdictional
`Interrogatories
`
`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 91 Filed 04/07/22 Page 6 of 6
`
`
`
`Document
`
`Portions Sought to
`Be Sealed
`
`Decl. ISO Sealing
`
`Ruling
`
`lines 15–27.
`
`DENIED as to all
`other portions, as
`without evidentiary
`support from a
`declaration.
`GRANTED, as
`confidential business,
`financial, and
`licensing information
`of AGIS Software.
`
`Entire document.
`ECF No. 79 at 2.
`
`Rubino Decl.,
`ECF No. 87 at 4.
`
`ECF No. 78-1,
`Ex. 11, 30(b)(6)
`Deposition Transcript
`of Thomas Meriam,
`dated March 22, 2022
`
`III. ORDER
`
`For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
`
`1.
`
`Lyft’s administrative motions to consider whether another party’s material should be
`
`sealed are GRANTED IN PART, per the above; and
`
`2.
`
`Lyft SHALL file newly redacted versions of ECF No. 75-1, Ex. 10; ECF No. 78-1,
`
`Ex. 1; and ECF No. 78-1, Ex. 7, per the above, on or before April 13, 2022.
`
`
`
`Dated: April 7, 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
`
`