DoorDash, Inc. v. City Of New York

Background

This order addresses related cases brought by DoorDash, Inc., Portier, LLC, and Grubhub, Inc. against the City of New York. The plaintiffs asked to seal or redact exhibits submitted with the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. The opinion states that docket citations are to the DoorDash case.

The plaintiffs identified five general grounds for sealing or redaction: competitively sensitive contract terms or negotiations; sensitive information about data-security practices; internal marketing, operations, or product strategy; sensitive internal business data; and personal identifying information. The City opposed some of the proposed sealings and redactions.

Legal standard

The court explained that the public generally has a right to inspect judicial records. A party seeking to seal such records must show that important interests outweigh public access and that the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored.

Materials submitted in connection with summary judgment are judicial documents because they could influence the court’s decision on a dispositive motion. The presumption of public access is therefore strong when the materials are relevant to summary judgment. The court may nevertheless protect interests such as confidential business information, data-security information, and the privacy interests of third parties. General claims that information is confidential are not enough; the party must make a particular and specific showing of likely harm.

Rulings

The court found that the plaintiffs’ proposed redactions to Rule 56.1 statements, depositions, and other litigation materials were too broad. Those materials included information the court relied on in its summary-judgment analysis, including aggregate information about restaurants using the plaintiffs’ services and testimony about customer-data access and restrictions. The court held that the plaintiffs could seek narrower redactions limited to nonpublic revenue and pricing information, the names of specific restaurants, and internal data-security protocols.

The court also found that the plaintiffs’ restaurant agreements were important to its analysis of the law’s constitutionality, creating a strong presumption of public access. It allowed redactions for information that would cause particular and specific harm, such as the names of individual restaurants or persons and pricing terms, but did not permit the agreements to be filed entirely under seal.

The court granted the request to seal the plaintiffs’ security assessments and agreements with security vendors. It also granted the request to seal internal communications and strategic documents, finding that those materials were largely collateral to the central issues and could reveal sensitive business strategies.

Disposition

The plaintiffs’ motion to seal was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion concerning Rule 56.1 statements, depositions, and other litigation materials was DENIED without prejudice. The motion concerning restaurant agreements was also DENIED without prejudice. For both categories, the plaintiffs had until October 24, 2024, to propose narrower redactions; otherwise, the court stated that it would direct the Clerk of Court to unseal the exhibits. The motions concerning security assessments and security-vendor agreements, and concerning internal communications and strategic documents, were GRANTED. Judge Analisa Torres directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the specified motions in all three related cases.