Opinion
21-cv-04653-BLF
06-06-2022
LYFT, INC., Plaintiff, v. AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION REGARDING PROPOSED REDACTIONS TO COURT'S SEALED ORDER
[Re: ECF No. 136]
BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge
On May 19, 2022, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiff Lyft, Inc.'s (“Lyft”) Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. See ECF No. 133. The Court conditionally sealed the order since it referenced materials that were filed under seal, directing the parties to file a stipulated request for redactions. See ECF No. 134. On May 24, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation with a proposed redacted version of the Court's order. See ECF No. 136. On May 25, 2022, the Court directed the parties to submit declarations in support of the confidentiality of the information underlying the proposed redactions. See ECF No. 137. On May 27, 2022, Defendant AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS Software”) submitted a declaration from its counsel Vincent J. Rubino, III in support of the proposed redactions. See Rubino Decl., ECF No. 142. On May 31, 2022, Lyft submitted a declaration from counsel indicating that it “takes no position” with regard to the confidentiality of the information for which the parties proposed redactions. See Salpietra Decl., ECF No. 143.
“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, 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.
The information for which the parties proposed redactions falls into three main categories: (1) information regarding a AGIS Software license agreements (ECF No. 133 at 2:16-17, 4:17-18, 4:28); (2) information regarding the structure of AGIS Software and AGIS, Inc. and AGIS Holdings, Inc. (ECF No. 133 at 3:12-14, 3:16-17, 3:19, 3:22, 3:27-28, 4:1-2). With respect to the information regarding the license agreement, Mr. Rubino's declaration indicates that the information at issue is covered by confidentiality provisions in the agreements that would be breached if the information were revealed. See Rubino Decl., ECF No. 142 at 1. Further, Mr. Rubino indicates that making the information public would be harmful to the third parties who entered into those agreements, since it would reveal confidential licensing information to competitors. See Id. at 1. With respect to the information regarding the structure and funds of AGIS Software, AGIS Inc. and AGIS Holdings, Inc., Mr. Rubino indicates that the information is confidential business information, including information regarding the contents of agreements between entities. See Id. at 2.
As an initial matter, the Court finds that the “good cause” standard applies here, since the parties seek to seal information in connection with the Court's order on Lyft's Motion to File First Amended Complaint, which is only tangentially related to the merits of this case. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097.
Further, the Court finds that AGIS Software has shown good cause for keeping the proposed redacted information under seal. The proposed redactions pertain to confidential business and licensing information, and AGIS Software has provided evidence that publicly disclosing this information would harm AGIS Software and third parties. See 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”); Nicolosi Distributing, Inc. v. Finishmaster, Inc., No. 18-cv-03587-BLF, 2018 WL 10758114, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2018) (“[Compelling reasons exist [to seal three contracts] because they contain proprietary and confidential business information, including potential trade secrets and business practices, such as product rates and purchase requirements.”); ”); In re Google Location Hist. Litig., 514 F.Supp.3d 1147, 1162 (N.D. Cal. 2021).
Accordingly, the parties' stipulation regarding redactions to the Court's sealed order at ECF No. 133 is hereby GRANTED. The Court will file the proposed redacted version of its sealed order shortly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.