Lyft, Inc. v. AGIS Software Development LLC, No. 5:2021cv04653 - Document 91 (N.D. Cal. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING IN PART 76 79 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY'S MATERIALS SHOULD BE SEALED. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 4/7/2022. (blflc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/7/2022)
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 v. 9 10 AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC, Defendant. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 21-cv-04653-BLF ORDER GRANTING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL [Re: ECF Nos. 76, 79] 12 Before the Court are Plaintiff Lyft, Inc.’s (“Lyft”) administrative motions to consider 13 14 whether another party’s material should be sealed under Civil Local Rule 79-5(f). 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. Based on the below reasoning, the Court GRANTS IN PART Lyft’s administrative motions. 20 21 See I. LEGAL STANDARD 22 “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 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. 2 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local 3 Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a 4 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that 5 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive 6 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1)(i). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5 7 requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” 8 Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1)(ii). 9 Furthermore, when a party (the “Moving Party”) seeks to seal a document that has been 10 designated as confidential by another party or non-party (the “Designating Party”), the Moving Party 11 must file a Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed under Local 12 Rule 79-5(f). The Moving Party must file a motion “identify[ing] each document or portions thereof 13 for which sealing is sought.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(1). “Within 7 days of the motion’s filing, the 14 Designating Party must file a statement and/or declaration as described in [Civil Local 15 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 16 later than 4 days after the Designating Party files its statement and/or declaration.” 17 Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(4). 18 II. DISCUSSION 19 Because Lyft’s sealing motions relate to a motion to compel discovery and a motion for 20 leave to file an amended complaint, the Court finds that the “good cause” standard applies. Ctr. for 21 Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097. 22 The Court has reviewed the sealing motions. The Court finds that AGIS Software has shown 23 good cause to file the documents and portions of documents at issue under seal given the sensitive 24 financial and business information they contain. See, e.g., In re Electronic Arts, 298 Fed.Appx. 568, 25 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding compelling reasons for sealing “business information that might harm 26 a litigant’s competitive strategy”); In re Google Location Hist. Litig., 514 F.Supp.3d 1147, 1162 27 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (“Compelling reasons may exist to seal ‘trade secrets, marketing strategies, product 28 development plans, detailed product-specific financial information, customer information, internal 2 1 reports[.]’”) (quoting In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litig., No. 5:19–MD–02827–EJD, 2 2019 WL 1767158, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2019)); Krieger v. Atheros Commc’ns, Inc., 3 No. 11–CV–00640–LHK, 2011 WL 2550831, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 25, 2011) (granting sealing 4 request of “long-term financial projections, discussions of business strategy, and competitive 5 analyses”). 6 7 The Court rules as follows on Lyft’s motions to consider whether another party’s material should be sealed: 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Document ECF No. 75, Motion to Compel Discovery and Compliance with Local Patent Rules 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ECF No. 75-1, Ex. 10, Defendant AGIS Software’s First Supplemental Objections and Responses to Lyft Inc.’s First Set of Jurisdictional Interrogatories 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. Decl. ISO Sealing ECF No. 76 at 1. Entire document. ECF No. 76 at 1. 26 27 28 3 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, 1 Document Portions Sought to Be Sealed • 2 • • 3 4 • 5 6 • 7 • 8 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. 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. 9 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 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 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 • • • • • • 10 14 • ECF No. 78-1, Ex. 1, First Amended Complaint Entire document. ECF No. 76 at 1. Rubino Decl., ECF No. 86 at 3. Highlighted portions at: • Page 5, lines 6–12, 18, 23–26 • Page 6, line 4 • Page 7, lines 13–14 Rubino Decl., ECF No. 87 at 1–2. 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 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 4 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. GRANTED, as confidential business, financial, and licensing information of AGIS Software, regarding the highlighted portions at: • Page 5, lines 18–22 • Page 14, lines 1 Document 2 3 4 Portions Sought to Be Sealed • Page 16, lines 15–16, 20–27 • Page 17, lines 5–7, 12–13. • Decl. ISO Sealing Ruling Page 16, lines 15–16, 20–27. 13–17 Page 15, lines 25–28 Page 16, lines 15–16, 20–27. • ECF No. 79 at 1. 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 • ECF No. 78-1, Ex. 7, Defendant AGIS Software’s First Supplemental Objections and Responses to Lyft Inc.’s First Set of Jurisdictional Interrogatories Entire document. ECF No. 79 at 1–2. 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. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 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 1 Portions Sought to Be Sealed Decl. ISO Sealing lines 15–27. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ruling ECF No. 78-1, Ex. 11, 30(b)(6) Deposition Transcript of Thomas Meriam, dated March 22, 2022 Entire document. ECF No. 79 at 2. Rubino Decl., ECF No. 87 at 4. DENIED as to all other portions, as without evidentiary support from a declaration. GRANTED, as confidential business, financial, and licensing information of AGIS Software. 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 III. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. sealed are GRANTED IN PART, per the above; and 13 14 15 Lyft’s administrative motions to consider whether another party’s material should be 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. 16 17 18 19 Dated: April 7, 2022 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 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.
