SC Innovations, Inc. v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Background

SC Innovations, Inc., which the opinion also calls Sidecar, and Uber Technologies, Inc. and its subsidiaries, collectively called Uber, submitted a joint letter about a discovery dispute. Sidecar sought to depose an Uber corporate representative about Uber Eats, Uber’s food-delivery service. The parties agreed that Uber Eats was outside the relevant product market alleged in Sidecar’s antitrust complaint.

Sidecar argued that information about Uber Eats could still be relevant to calculating potential damages. According to Sidecar’s position described in the opinion, it had entered or intended to enter the food-delivery market before Uber’s alleged conduct in the passenger ride-hailing market drove Sidecar out of business. Uber argued that any connection between its alleged conduct and Sidecar’s hypothetical future food-delivery business was speculative.

Discovery ruling

The court distinguished cases about antitrust injury, which is a required element for establishing liability, from cases about the scope of damages after liability is shown. The court concluded that Sidecar might be able to recover lost profits outside the passenger ride-hailing market if those losses resulted from a legally recognized injury within the relevant market. It therefore found that Uber Eats performance information could be relevant to modeling those losses.

At the same time, the court said Uber Eats was relatively far from the case’s central issues and that extensive discovery into the service was not proportional to the needs of the case at that time. The court ordered Uber to provide a corporate representative to testify about Uber Eats profit-and-loss statements and profitability. The court stated that this discovery order was without prejudice to either party’s later arguments about the merits of, or limits on, permissible damages.

Sealing ruling

Sidecar also moved to file portions of the joint discovery letter brief and an exhibit under seal based on Uber’s confidentiality designations. The court expressed concern about the parties’ use of the sealing procedure and directed them to include supporting declarations when future joint letters are filed, unless special circumstances require otherwise. It also reminded the parties that unredacted documents must clearly identify the omitted portions and display the required notation.

The court found that Uber had shown good cause to seal the redacted portions because they contained confidential commercial information, including sensitive transactional data, business strategies, and commission-structure information. It granted Sidecar’s administrative motion to file under seal.