Lyft, Inc. v. AGIS Software Development LLC

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION LYFT, INC., Case No. 21-cv-04653-BLF 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT 9 v. AGIS SOFTWARE’S SEALING MOTION; GRANTING PLAINTIFF 10 AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC, LYFT, INC.’S MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY’S 11 Defendant. MATERIAL SHOULD BE SEALED; DENYING PLAINTIFF LYFT, INC.’S 12 SEALING MOTION 13 [Re: ECF Nos. 93, 108, 109] 15 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.

22 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.

25 I. LEGAL STANDARD 26 “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, 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.

6 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.”

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 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.”

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 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 good cause to file under seal the documents and portions of documents containing AGIS Software’s 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.

7 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.

12 The Court rules as follows on the parties’ sealing motions: Sealing Document Portions Decl. ISO Ruling Motion Sought to Be Sought to Be Sealing 15 Sealed Sealed ECF No. 93, ECF No. 94, Highlighted Rubino Decl., GRANTED, as 16 AGIS AGIS portions at: ECF No. 93-1 confidential business, Software’s Software’s • Page 5, at 1–2 financial, and licensing 17 Motion to Seal Response in lines 8–25; information of AGIS Opposition to • Page 6, Software.

Lyft’s Motion lines 1–15, 19 for Leave to 10–12, File First 14–18, 20 Amended 23–26 Complaint 21 ECF No. 93, ECF No. 94, Entire Rubino Decl., GRANTED, as AGIS Ex. 1, 30(b)(6) Document ECF No. 93-1 confidential business, Software’s Deposition at 2 financial, and licensing 23 Motion to Seal Transcript of information of AGIS Thomas Software.

24 Meriam ECF No. 108, ECF No. 107, Highlighted Rubino Decl., GRANTED, as Lyft’s Motion Lyft’s Reply in portions at: ECF No. 87 confidential business, 26 to Consider Support of its • Page 4, at 3–4 financial, and licensing Whether Motion for lines 15– information of AGIS 27 Another Party’s Leave to File 21, 22–27; Software.

Material First Amended Sealing Document Portions Decl. ISO Ruling Motion Sought to Be Sought to Be Sealing 2 Sealed Sealed Sealed 24–27; 3 • Page 6, lines 2–3; • Page 8, 5 lines 1–2, 10–11 ECF No. 108, ECF No. 107, Entire Rubino Decl., GRANTED, as Lyft’s Motion Ex. 13, Document ECF No. 87 confidential business, to Consider 30(b)(6) at 4; Rubino financial, and licensing Whether Deposition Decl., information of AGIS Another Party’s Transcript of ECF No. 93-1 Software.

9 Material Thomas at 2; Rubino Should Be Meriam Decl., 10 Sealed ECF No. 86 at 3 11 ECF No. 109, ECF No. 107, Highlighted Salpietra Decl., Lyft moves to seal the Lyft’s Motion Lyft’s Reply in portions at: ECF No. 109-1 amount of attorneys’ to Seal Support of its • Page 5, at 1–2 fees sought in a 13 Motion for line 11 concurrent action in the Leave to File Eastern District of 14 First Amended Texas because Complaint “[d]isclosure of this 15 information could cause competitive harm to Lyft by providing an 17 incomplete and misleading picture of 18 the nature and magnitude of legal fees expended for the EDTX Action in view of the fact that Lyft is 21 seeking only a limited amount of its overall 22 fees.” See Salpietra Decl., ECF No. 109-1 at 2–3. The Court 24 disagrees with Lyft that disclosing the amount 25 of attorneys’ fees it seeks in the concurrent 26 action could cause it competitive harm sufficient for a showing Sealing Document Portions Decl. ISO Ruling Motion Sought to Be Sought to Be Sealing 2 Sealed Sealed re Anthem, Inc. Data 3 Breach Litig., No. 15–MD–02617–LHK, 4 2018 WL 3067783, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar.

16, 2018) (sealing 6 request related to attorneys’ fees motion 7 was narrowly tailored because it did not seek 8 to seal aggregate amount of attorneys’ fees sought); see also 10 Adtrader, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 11 17–cv–07082–BLF, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12 71651, at **4–6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2020) (granting sealing 14 motion as to different kinds of information in 15 attorneys’ fees motion).

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Lyft’s request 17 to seal this information.

18 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / I. 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 ECF No. 108 is GRANTED; 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 before May 9, 2022.

9 || Dated: May 2, 2022 kom Lh ham ty) BETH LABSON FREEMAN 11 United States District Judge

= 17 18