Lyft, Inc. v. AGIS Software Development LLC, No. 5:2021cv04653 - Document 118 (N.D. Cal. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING 93 DEFENDANT AGIS SOFTWARE'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL; GRANTING 108 PLAINTIFF LYFT, INC.'S MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY'S MATERIAL SHOULD BE SEALED; DENYING 109 PLAINTIFF LYFT, INC.'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 5/2/2022. (blflc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2022)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 LYFT, INC., Plaintiff, 8 12 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 13 [Re: ECF Nos. 93, 108, 109] v. 9 10 AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC, Defendant. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 21-cv-04653-BLF 14 15 Before the Court are (1) Defendant AGIS Software Development LLC’s (“AGIS Software”) 16 administrative motion to seal documents filed with its Opposition to Plaintiff Lyft, Inc.’s (“Lyft”) 17 Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 93); (2) Lyft’s administrative motion 18 to consider whether another party’s material should be sealed in connection with its Reply in support 19 of its Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 108); and (3) Lyft’s 20 administrative motion to seal information in its Reply in support of its Motion for Leave to File First 21 Amended Complaint (ECF No. 109). All three motions are unopposed. 22 Based on the below reasoning, the Court GRANTS AGIS Software’s sealing motion at 23 ECF No. 93 and Lyft’s motion to consider whether another party’s material should be sealed at 24 ECF No. 108. Further, the Court DENIES Lyft’s motion to seal at ECF No. 109. 25 I. LEGAL STANDARD 26 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and 27 documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 28 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, United States District Court Northern District of California 1 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are “more than 2 tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling 3 reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101–02 (9th Cir. 4 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing 5 of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. 6 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local 7 Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a 8 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that 9 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive 10 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1)(i). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5 11 requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” 12 Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1)(ii). 13 Furthermore, when a party (the “Moving Party”) seeks to seal a document that has been 14 designated as confidential by another party or non-party (the “Designating Party”), the Moving Party 15 must file a Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed under Local 16 Rule 79-5(f). The Moving Party must file a motion “identify[ing] each document or portions thereof 17 for which sealing is sought.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(1). “Within 7 days of the motion’s filing, the 18 Designating Party must file a statement and/or declaration as described in [Civil Local 19 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 20 later than 4 days after the Designating Party files its statement and/or declaration.” 21 Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(4). 22 II. DISCUSSION 23 Because the parties’ sealing motions pertain to a motion for leave to file an amended 24 complaint, the Court finds that the “good cause” standard applies. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d 25 at 1097. 26 The Court has reviewed the sealing motions. The Court finds that AGIS Software has shown 27 good cause to file under seal the documents and portions of documents containing AGIS Software’s 28 confidential information given the sensitive financial and business information they contain. 2 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 See, e.g., In re Electronic Arts, 298 Fed.Appx. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding compelling reasons 2 for sealing “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive strategy”); In re Google 3 Location Hist. Litig., 514 F.Supp.3d 1147, 1162 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (“Compelling reasons may exist 4 to seal ‘trade secrets, marketing strategies, product development plans, detailed product-specific 5 financial information, customer information, internal reports[.]’”) (quoting In re Apple Inc. Device 6 Performance Litig., No. 5:19–MD–02827–EJD, 2019 WL 1767158, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 7 22, 2019)); Krieger v. Atheros Commc’ns, Inc., No. 11–CV–00640–LHK, 2011 WL 2550831, at *1 8 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 25, 2011) (granting sealing request of “long-term financial projections, discussions 9 of business strategy, and competitive analyses”). However, as outlined below, the Court finds that 10 Lyft has failed to show good cause as to its sealing motion related to the amount of attorneys’ fees 11 sought in a concurrent action in the Eastern District of Texas. See ECF No. 109. 12 The Court rules as follows on the parties’ sealing motions: 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Sealing Motion Document Sought to Be Sealed ECF No. 93, ECF No. 94, AGIS AGIS Software’s Software’s Motion to Seal Response in Opposition to Lyft’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint ECF No. 93, ECF No. 94, AGIS Ex. 1, 30(b)(6) Software’s Deposition Motion to Seal Transcript of Thomas Meriam ECF No. 108, ECF No. 107, Lyft’s Motion Lyft’s Reply in to Consider Support of its Whether Motion for Another Party’s Leave to File Material First Amended Should Be 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 Decl. ISO Sealing Ruling Rubino Decl., ECF No. 93-1 at 1–2 GRANTED, as confidential business, financial, and licensing information of AGIS Software. Entire Document Rubino Decl., ECF No. 93-1 at 2 GRANTED, as confidential business, financial, and licensing information of AGIS Software. Highlighted portions at: • Page 4, lines 15– 21, 22–27; • Page 5, lines 1–2, 3 Rubino Decl., ECF No. 87 at 3–4 GRANTED, as confidential business, financial, and licensing information of AGIS Software. 1 2 Sealing Motion Document Sought to Be Sealed Sealed 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 ECF No. 108, Lyft’s Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed ECF No. 107, Ex. 13, 30(b)(6) Deposition Transcript of Thomas Meriam ECF No. 109, Lyft’s Motion to Seal 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 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 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 1 2 Document Sought to Be Sealed Portions Sought to Be Sealed 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. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Decl. ISO Sealing 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 5 1 III. ORDER 2 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. AGIS Software’s sealing motion at ECF No. 93 is GRANTED; 4 2. Lyft’s motion to consider whether another party’s material should be sealed at 5 6 3. Lyft’s sealing motion at ECF No. 109 is DENIED; and 7 4. Lyft SHALL file newly redacted versions of ECF No. 107, per the above, on or 8 9 10 11 United States District Court Northern District of California ECF No. 108 is GRANTED; before May 9, 2022. Dated: May 2, 2022 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
