In re Lyft Inc. Securities Litigation
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:19-cv-02690
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In re Lyft Securities Litigation: Judge Gilliam denied three administrative motions to seal as moot after the related filing motion became moot.
The Lead Plaintiff and the parties who filed or opposed the three motions to seal; the court excused them from filing public versions of the documents associated with Dkt. Nos. 205, 229, and 236.
What happened
In re Lyft Inc. Securities Litigation involved three motions asking the court to keep documents connected to a proposed second amended complaint and related arguments from public view.
The court had already terminated the motion seeking permission to file that complaint as moot, and later approved the parties’ agreement making the second amended complaint the operative complaint. Because the court never decided the permission motion, it did not need to consider the documents filed with it.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied the three motions to seal as moot. The parties did not have to file public versions of those documents, and the court said it would address a separate motion to seal associated with the operative complaint.
The detailed version
- In re Lyft Inc. Securities Litigation · No. 4:19-cv-02690
- Haywood Gilliam
- Sept. 28, 2022
Background
The court considered three administrative motions to seal, identified as Dkt. Nos. 205, 229, and 236. The motions concerned documents filed in connection with Lead Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and the briefing related to that motion.
On February 10, 2022, the court terminated the motion for leave as moot. On June 16, 2022, the court granted the parties’ joint stipulation and proposed order designating the second amended complaint as the operative complaint. Lead Plaintiff then filed that complaint and a separate motion to seal, identified as Dkt. No. 251.
Ruling
Because the court did not decide the motion for leave to file the second amended complaint, it denied the three related motions to seal as moot. “Moot” means that the court no longer had a live issue requiring a decision. The court stated that it would not consider the documents associated with Dkt. Nos. 205, 229, and 236.
The parties were excused from filing public versions of the documents provisionally filed under seal in connection with those docket entries. The court stated that it would instead address the separate administrative motion to seal at Dkt. No. 251.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.