Estate of Silvia Manzo Velasco et al vs Uber Technologies Inc et al

Case Number

24CV03780

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 02/27/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Motion to Seal; Motions for Summary Judgment

Tentative Ruling

(1) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendant Checkr, Inc., to seal documents and information submitted in connection with defendant’s motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication, is denied.

(2) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., and Portier, LLC’s, for an order to seal confidential summary judgment filings is denied.

(3) Unless defendant Checkr, Inc., notifies the court, on or before March 9, 2026, that each of the following records are to be filed unsealed, the clerk of the court is directed to permanently delete the following records which shall not be considered by the court: (a) the document labeled “Public Record Version (With Exhibit F Redacted; Sealed Version Lodged Conditionally Under Seal) Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Compendium of Evidence In Support Of Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication” and lodged or filed under seal on July 25, 2025; (b) the document labeled “Sealed Record Version (With Exhibit F) Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Compendium of Evidence In Support Of Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication” (Volume 1 of 2) and lodged or filed under seal on July 25, 2025; (c) the document labeled  “Sealed Record Version (With Exhibit F) Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Compendium of Evidence In Support Of Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication” (Volume 2 of 2) and lodged or filed under seal on July 25, 2025; (d) the document labeled “Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Separate Statement In Support Of Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication” and lodged or filed under seal on July 25, 2025; (e) the document labeled “Filed Under Seal Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Compendium of Evidence In Support Of Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication” and lodged or filed under seal on August 6, 2025; (f) the document labeled “Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Separate Statement In Support Of Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication” and lodged or filed under seal on August 6, 2025; (g) the document labeled “Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Evidentiary Objections In Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication: and lodged or filed under seal on October 10, 2025; and (h) the document labeled “Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement of Additional Facts” and lodged or filed under seal on October 10, 2025.

(4) For the reasons stated herein, the clerk is directed to transfer to the public file, the following documents lodged or filed under seal by plaintiffs on October 6, 2025: (a) the document labeled “Confidential - Filed Under Seal Pursuant To 11/26/2024 Protective Order And Without Any Further Sealing Order Required – Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, For Summary Adjudication; Memorandum of Points and Authorities”; (b) the document labeled “Confidential - Filed Under Seal Pursuant To 11/26/2024 Protective Order And Without Any Further Sealing Order Required – Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice In Opposition To Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, For Summary Adjudication”; (c) the document labeled “Confidential - Filed Under Seal Pursuant To 11/26/2024 Protective Order And Without Any Further Sealing Order Required – Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement In Opposition To Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, For Summary Adjudication”; (d) the document labeled “Confidential - Filed Under Seal Pursuant To 11/26/2024 Protective Order And Without Any Further Sealing Order Required – Plaintiffs’ Compendium of Exhibits In Opposition To Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, For Summary Adjudication Volume 1 of 3”; (e) the document labeled “Confidential - Filed Under Seal Pursuant To 11/26/2024 Protective Order And Without Any Further Sealing Order Required – Plaintiffs’ Compendium of Exhibits In Opposition To Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, For Summary Adjudication Volume 2 of 3”; and (f) the document labeled “Confidential - Filed Under Seal Pursuant To 11/26/2024 Protective Order And Without Any Further Sealing Order Required – Plaintiffs’ Compendium of Exhibits In Opposition To Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, For Summary Adjudication Volume 3 of 3”.

(5) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., and Portier, LLC, for summary judgment or adjudication as to plaintiffs Francisca Solis and Jose Alvarado; the motion of defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., and Portier, LLC, for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of plaintiffs’ fourth cause of action and prayer for punitive damages; the motion of defendant Checkr, Inc., for summary judgment or adjudication (filed on July 25, 2025); and plaintiffs’ motion for summary adjudication, are each continued to April 24, 2026.

(6) On or before March 6, 2026, defendant Checkr, Inc., shall serve and file proof of service of, notice of the court’s ruling herein.

Background:

The first amended complaint (FAC) filed on June 6, 2023, by plaintiffs the Estate of Silvia Manzo Velasco (Silvia), by and through its successor in interest Ricardo Velasco (Ricardo); Ricardo; Juan Velasco (Juan); Ana Velasco (Ana); Kasandra Velasco (Kasandra); Monica Velasco (Monica); Jose Alvarado (Alvarado) by and through his guardian ad litem Ana; and Francisca Solis (Solis) (collectively, Plaintiffs) against defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. (Uber), Portier, LLC (Portier), Checkr, Inc., (Checkr), and Andrew Raymond Burgher (Burgher) is the operative pleading. (Note: The court refers to some parties by their first names to avoid confusion due to common surnames. No disrespect is intended.) As alleged in the FAC:

Ricardo is the husband of Silvia, and Juan, Ana, Kasandra, and Monica are Silvia’s children. (FAC, ¶¶ 6-10.) Alvarado is Silvia’s biological grandson, and Solis is Silvia’s mother. (Id. at ¶¶ 11-12.)

Uber operates a “Transportation Network Company” which provides transportation options and vehicles through an online application (the Uber App). (FAC, ¶ 13.) Portier is a subsidiary of Uber that conducts business as Uber Eats, and runs the “Delivery Network Company” of Uber which provides on-demand food delivery services through the “Uber Eats” mobile phone application (the Uber Eats App). (Id. at ¶¶ 14 & 16.) Uber and Portier (collectively, the Uber Parties) employ drivers through the Uber App and the Uber Eats App. (Id. at ¶ 16.) Portier generates leads for drivers through the Uber Eats App to facilitate the delivery of food to customers, and holds the insurance certificate for insurance carried by Uber. (Id. at ¶¶ 16 & 18.)

The Uber Parties perform background investigations of their drivers through Checkr, which is a third-party investigative consumer reporting agency. (FAC, ¶¶ 19 & 52.) The background checks outsourced by the Uber Parties to Checkr are based on unverified information submitted by prospective drivers through either the Uber Eats App or a website, and do not require fingerprints or other biometric identifiers. (Id. at ¶ 46.) As a result, the background checks performed by Checkr on behalf of the Uber Parties fail to uncover criminal conduct and driver histories. (Ibid.)

Burgher entered into a “Technology Services Agreement” with the Uber Parties in which Burgher agreed that Burgher’s transportation of passengers or delivery of food for the Uber Parties furthered an employer-employee relationship. (FAC, ¶ 61.) On October 26, 2021, while working as a commercial driver for Uber and Uber Eats, Burger was operating his vehicle at speeds up to 120 miles per hour while intoxicated, and struck a vehicle in which Silvia was a passenger, killing Silvia. (Id. at ¶¶ 73-76.) Though the Uber Parties employed Checkr to investigate Burgher’s criminal history and motor vehicle record, Checkr failed to identify Burgher’s prior criminal convictions which showed, among other things, that Burgher was on probation for a second “DUI” conviction. (Id. at ¶ 82.)

The FAC alleges four causes of action: (1) negligence (against all defendants); (2) negligent hiring, supervision, or retention (against Uber, Portier, and Checkr); (3) wrongful death (against all defendants); and (4) survival action (against all defendants).

On December 15, 2023, Uber and Portier each and separately answered the FAC, generally denying its allegations and asserting affirmative defenses.

Burgher filed an answer to the FAC on January 16, 2024, generally denying its allegations and asserting affirmative defenses.

Checkr answered the FAC on February 22, 2024, also generally denying its allegations and asserting affirmative defenses.

The lengthy procedural history relevant to the present proceeding is reflected in a minute order entered in this action on October 24, 2025 (the October 24 Order), as follows:

On November 21, 2024, the Uber Parties filed three motions (collectively, the Uber Motions): (1) for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication in their favor as to all causes of action alleged against the Uber Parties by Solis and Alvarado (the Solis/Alvarado MSJ); (2) for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication in their favor as to all causes of action alleged in the FAC (the Uber MSJ); and (3) for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication in their favor as to the fourth cause of action and claim for punitive damages alleged in the FAC (the Punitive Damages MSJ). The Uber Motions were calendared for hearing on February 7, 2025.

On November 25, Checkr filed a document labeled as an “amended” notice and motion for summary judgment (the Checkr MSJ). Notwithstanding that label, court records reflect that Checkr did not file a motion for summary judgment prior to November 25, 2024. The Checkr MSJ was also calendared for hearing on February 7, 2025.

The hearings on the Uber Motions and the Checkr MSJ were continued, by stipulations and court orders, to August 29, 2025.

On July 24, 2025, a joint stipulation (the Stipulation) was filed in this action, stating that Checkr is “concurrently ... filing a Notice of Withdrawal of [the Checkr MSJ] because Checkr will be filing a new Motion for Summary Judgment on or before July 25, 2025, in order to incorporate the extensive deposition testimony and evidence obtained after the filing of the original Checkr MSJ.” (Jul. 24, 2025, Stip. at p. 2, ll. 14-17.) Pursuant to the Stipulation, the parties agreed to continue the hearing on the Uber Motions to October 24, 2025, and that a hearing on the forthcoming “new” motion by Checkr would be calendared for that same date.

On July 25, Checkr filed a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication in its favor as to all causes of action alleged in the FAC (the Checkr July MSJ). The Checkr July MSJ was calendared for hearing on October 24. Court records reflect that Checkr did not file a notice of withdrawal of the Checkr MSJ.

On October 17, the Uber Parties filed a notice (the Uber Notice) stating that they withdraw the motion captioned “Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication as to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint”. As reflected in the October 24 Order, the court has no record of the filing of a motion by the Uber Parties bearing that caption. In the October 24 Order, the court stated its understanding that the Uber Notice is intended as a withdrawal of the Uber MSJ.

In the October 24 Order, the court directed the parties to appear at the October 24 hearing to confirm the court’s understanding that three motions that remain calendared for a hearing are the Solis/Alvarado MSJ, the Punitive Damages MSJ, and the Checkr July MSJ. The court further ordered that any party that disagreed with the court’s understanding as stated above must, on or before November 5, 2025, file and serve a “statement of correction” identifying any motion for summary judgment or adjudication filed by that party and calendared for a hearing on October 24.

The October 24 Order also notes that the parties filed or lodged under seal various documents and materials in support of and in opposition to each of the motions described above. Pursuant to that order, the court, among other things, ordered any party who filed or lodged any document or material under seal in support of or in opposition to any motion for summary judgment or adjudication remaining on calendar for a hearing to, on or before November 5, 2025, file and serve a “sealing statement” that includes all of the information set forth in the October 24 Order. The court continued the hearing on the motions to November 14, 2025, and ordered the parties to appear at that continued hearing to address the status of the present record, among other matters.

Court record reflects that no party filed a statement of correction by the deadline prescribed in the October 24 Order.

On November 3, Checkr filed a sealing statement as to the Checkr July MSJ.

On November 5, plaintiffs filed a sealing statement as to the Checkr July MSJ, and separately filed a sealing statement as to the Uber MSJ which, as further noted above, was withdrawn by the Uber Parties on October 17, 2025. (See Pl. Sealing Stmt. [Uber MSJ] at p. 3.)

Court records further reflect that the Uber Parties did not file a sealing statement.

On November 14, the court entered a minute order (the November 14 Order), adopting its tentative ruling, with modifications, as follows:

“As no party has filed a statement of correction by the deadline stated in the Order set forth above, the court confirms its understanding that the three motions remaining on calendar for hearing are the Solis/Alvarado MSJ, the Punitive Damages MSJ, and the Checkr July MSJ.

Checkr’s sealing statement:

In its sealing statement, Checkr states that the records it has lodged or filed under seal in support of the Checkr July MSJ include: (1) exhibits A, C, G, F and I (the Checkr Exhibits) to Checkr’s compendium of evidence (the Checkr COE); (2) Checkr’s separate statement (the Checkr SS); (3) Checkr’s objections to plaintiffs’ evidence (the Checkr Objections); and (4) Checkr’s response to plaintiff’s separate statement of material facts (the Checkr Response SS) (collectively, the Checkr Records). (Checkr Sealing Stmt., ¶¶ 1-4.)

Checkr further states that it lodged the Checkr Exhibits, the Checkr COE, and the Checkr SS under seal on August 6, 2025, and that it lodged the Checkr Objections and Checker Response SS under seal on October 10, 2025. (Checkr Sealing Stmt., ¶¶ 1-4.) Checkr has also filed redacted versions of the Checkr Records in the public file. (Ibid.)

Checkr asserts that the orders which authorize Checkr to lodge or file the Checkr Records under seal include the “Joint Stipulation and Order to Remove Currently Filed Separate Statement and Exhibits A, C, G, F and I Contained in the Compendium of Evidence Submitted in Support of Checkr, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication From the Public Record and Refile Them Under Seal” signed by the court August 4, 2025, (the August Order). (Checkr Seal. Stmt., ¶¶ 1(iv), 2(iv), 3(iv) & 4(iv).) Checkr contends that the August Order approved a request by Checkr to re-file the Checkr Exhibits, the Checkr COE, and the Checkr SS, under seal, which Checkr had inadvertently filed in the public record. (Ibid.)

As to the Checkr SS, the Checkr Objections, and the Checkr Response SS, Checkr asserts that these documents include the same or similar information that the court purportedly authorized to be sealed pursuant to the August Order, and that this information has been redacted from the public file. (Checkr Seal. Stmt., ¶¶ 1(iv), 2(iv), 3(iv) & 4(iv).) Checkr further asserts that the protective order entered in this case on November 26, 2024, (the Protective Order) allows the parties to seal materials designated as confidential. (Ibid.)

“Court records are open to the public unless they are specifically exempted from disclosure by statute or are protected by the court itself due to the necessity of confidentiality.” (McGuire v. Superior Court (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1685, 1687; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(c) [“[u]nless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.”].)

The California Rules of Court provide that records may not be filed under seal “based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(a).) Instead, “[a] party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551 (b)(1).) “The sealed records rules apply ... to ‘discovery materials that are used at trial or submitted as a basis for adjudication of matters other than discovery motions or proceedings.’ [Citations.]” (Overstock.com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 471, 492.)

The Protective Order relied on by Checkr in filing or lodging the Checkr Record under seal expressly provides: “Where any Confidential Materials, or Information derived from Confidential Materials, is included in any motion or other proceeding governed by California Rules of Court, Rules 2.550 and 2.551, the party shall follow those rules.” (Nov. 26, 2024, Protective Order, ¶ 17.) Noted above, the Checkr Records are submitted by Checkr as a basis for adjudication of the Checkr July MSJ. The court has no record showing that Checkr has filed and served an appropriate noticed motion for an order sealing the Checkr Records. Under the circumstances present here, and for all reasons discussed above, the Protective Order does not provide Checkr with authority to file the Checkr Records under seal.

In addition, a record may not be filed under seal unless the court expressly finds facts establishing that “[t]here exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record[,] [¶] [t]he overriding interest supports sealing the record[,] [¶] [a] substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed[,] [¶] [t]he proposed sealing is narrowly tailored[,] and [¶] [n]o less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(a) & (d).)  “In order to make the required “reasoned decision about sealing or unsealing records”, a court must “identify[] and weigh[] competing interests and concerns” by “identifying the specific information claimed to be entitled to such treatment; [] identifying the nature of the harm threatened by disclosure; and [] identifying and accounting for countervailing considerations.” (H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 894.)

The August Order does not include any express findings of fact establishing the matters described above. (See also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(e)(1)(B) [the court’s order must “[d]irect the sealing of only those documents and pages ... that contain the material that needs to be placed under seal”].)

In addition, the court’s records reflect that on July 25, 2025, concurrently with the filing of the Checkr July MSJ, Checkr filed the Checkr COE, which redacts exhibit F from the public file, and the Checkr SS, and separately lodged the Checkr COE under seal. The proposed order submitted with the parties’ joint stipulation described above contains inappropriate and sloppy language regarding the filing of the Checkr COE and Checkr SS under seal. Notwithstanding this sloppy language, the court intended by its August Order to only allow Checkr to lodge exhibits A, C, G, F, and I to the Checkr COE, and the Checkr SS, conditionally under seal pending the determination of a future noticed motion for an order sealing these records pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.551, as contemplated in and required by the Protective Order.

Moreover, the August Order does not address the Checkr Objections or the Checkr Response SS, or any material or information appearing in these records. Absent an appropriate motion to seal the Checkr Objections or Checkr Response SS, and for all further reasons discussed above, Checkr has failed to explain why it is authorized to file these records, or any material or information appearing in these records, under seal.

The court requires an appropriate and proper record on which to determine the Checkr July MSJ. For these and all further reasons discussed above, the court will direct the clerk of the court to transfer the Checkr Records to the public file unless an appropriate motion to seal these records is filed and served on or before December 1, 2025. Furthermore, any motion to seal the Checkr Records, or any material or information that has been redacted from the public file of these records, must include, on a point-by-point basis with respect to each category or type of information or material for which Checkr seeks a sealing order, factual and legal argument sufficient to demonstrate an overriding interest that overcomes the public’s right to access the records or information, with citations to relevant authority. The motion must also include specific citations to each record or information appearing in a record that has been redacted from the public file, on a line-by-line basis with page numbers sufficient to enable the court to locate that record or information. The motion must also be sufficient to enable the court to make the express findings set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d)(1) through (5), and the order required under rule 2.550(e).

The court will further require that any opposition to any motion to seal the Checkr Records be filed and served within the time prescribed in Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.

To allow sufficient time to resolve any motion for a sealing order that may be filed in the future, the court will continue the hearing on the Checkr July MSJ. Apart from any future motion for a sealing order as authorized herein, the parties shall not, without leave of court, file any further papers in support of or in opposition to the Checkr July MSJ.

Plaintiffs’ sealing statement:

As to the Checkr July MSJ, plaintiffs’ sealing statement states that the following records were filed or lodged under seal by plaintiffs on October 6, 2025: (1) plaintiffs’ opposition to the Checkr July MSJ; (2) plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice in opposition to the Checkr July MSJ; (3) plaintiffs’ separate statement in opposition to the Checkr July MSJ; and (4) plaintiffs’ compendium of exhibits in opposition to the Checkr July MSJ (collectively, the Plaintiff Records). (Pl. Seal. Stmt. at pp. 2-3.)

Though plaintiffs assert that the Protective Order authorizes the filing or lodging under seal of the Plaintiff Records, plaintiffs state that they lodged these records under seal “as a purely precautionary measure to avoid any allegation by defendants, or others, of potential violation of” the Protective Order. (Pl. Seal. Stmt. at p. 4, ll. 6-8.) Plaintiffs further state that they “do not believe, nor assert, nor advocate for, any filing, whatsoever, in this matter, ... to remain under seal....” (Id. at ll. 8-10.)

The same reasoning and analysis apply here. Though no party to this action, including Checkr, has filed a motion or application to seal the Plaintiff Records within the time prescribed in California Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(3)(B), it appears to the court that plaintiffs have not provided the written notice required under rule 2.551(b)(3)(A)(iii), when lodging the Plaintiff Records. Therefore, and for all reasons discussed above, the court will direct the clerk to place these records in the public file unless an appropriate motion for an order sealing the Plaintiff Records is filed and served on or before December 1.

Plaintiffs also separately filed a sealing statement identifying additional records filed or lodged by plaintiffs under seal in support of plaintiffs’ opposition to the Uber MSJ which, as noted above and in plaintiffs’ sealing statement, was withdrawn on October 17, 2025, pursuant to the Uber Notice. As the Uber MSJ has been withdrawn and no party has filed an appropriate motion to seal those records, the court will order these lodged records to be permanently deleted. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(6).)

To the extent any additional records or materials not identified or discussed herein have been lodged or filed under seal by as a basis for adjudicating the Solis/Alvarado MSJ, the Punitive Damages MSJ, or the Checkr July MSJ, the court will, absent the filing and service of an appropriate motion to seal those records by the deadline stated herein, direct those records or materials to be placed in the public file before determining the Solis/Alvarado MSJ, the Punitive Damages MSJ, or the Checkr July MSJ.

Plaintiffs’ amended opposing papers:

On November 3, 2025, plaintiffs filed an amended opposition to the Solis/Alvarado MSJ and Checkr’s joinder to that motion (collectively, the Amended Solis/Alvarado Opposition), stating that plaintiffs opposition to the Solis/Alvarado MSJ will be based on that amended opposition. (See Pl. Amended Opp. Solis/Alvarado MSJ at p. 2, ll. 7-13.) The Amended Solis/Alvarado Opposition is support by an amended compendium of evidence (the Amended Solis/Alvarado COE) and an amended separate statement of disputed and additional material facts in response to the Uber Parties’ separate statement (the Amended Solis/Alvarado SS).

Plaintiffs have also filed an amended compendium of evidence (the Amended Punitive Damages COE) and a second amended separate statement (the Amended Punitive Damages SS) in support of plaintiffs’ opposition to the Punitive Damages MSJ.

Plaintiffs also filed on November 3, separate statements responding to the separate statements filed by Checkr in support of its joinders to the Solis/Alvarado MSJ and the Punitive Damages MSJ.

On November 10, 2025, the Uber Parties filed objections to the Amended Solis/Alvarado Opposition, the Amended Solis/Alvarado COE, the Amended Solis/Alvarado SS, the Amended Punitive Damages COE, and the Amended Punitive Damages SS (collectively, the Amended Papers), on the grounds that these amended documents are untimely, contain new evidence or argument, and were not authorized by the court. Checkr joins in these objections.

The court understands the Amended Papers filed by plaintiffs and described above to supersede and replace the former versions of these papers previously filed by plaintiffs. For these reasons, the court will consider only the Amended Papers, and not the prior versions of these documents, and the Uber Parties and Checkr’s objections to these papers only, when determining the Solis/Alvarado MSJ and Punitive Damages MSJ.

In the interest of judicial efficiency, the court will also continue the hearing on the Solis/Alvarado MSJ and Punitive Damages MSJ. Apart from any motion for a sealing order authorized herein, the parties shall not, without leave of court, file any further papers in support of or in opposition to the Solis/Alvarado MSJ or the Punitive Damages MSJ.”

Pursuant to the November 14 Order, the court vacated the hearings on discovery motions calendared for hearing on January 9, 2026; ordered that any replies by the Uber Parties, or any joinder by Checkr to those replies, to papers filed by Plaintiffs on November 3, be filed and served by December 5, 2025; and continued the Solis/Alvarado MSJ, the Punitive Damages MSJ, and the Checkr July MSJ to February 27, 2026. The court further ordered that the parties shall not, without leave of court, file any additional papers in support of or in opposition to those motions apart from those authorized in the November 14 Order.

The November 14 Order also includes the following rulings:

“[U]nless a motion for a sealing order is filed and served on or before December 1, 2025, in accordance with this ruling, the clerk of the court is directed to transfer to the public file, the following documents filed or lodged under seal on July 25, 2025: (a) the document entitled “Public Record Version (With Exhibit F Redacted; Sealed Version Lodged Conditionally Under Seal) Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Compendium of Evidence In Support Of Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication”; (b) the document entitled “Sealed Record Version (With Exhibit F) Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Compendium of Evidence In Support Of Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication” (Volume 1 of 2); (c) the document entitled “Sealed Record Version (With Exhibit F) Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Compendium of Evidence In Support Of Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication” (Volume 2 of 2); and (d) the document entitled “Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Separate Statement In Support Of Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication”.

“[U]nless a motion for a sealing order is filed and served on or before December 1, 2025, in accordance with this ruling, the clerk of the court is directed to transfer to the public file, the following documents filed or lodged under seal on August 6, 2025, by defendant Checkr, Inc.: (a) the document entitled “Filed Under Seal Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Compendium of Evidence In Support Of Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication”; and (b) the document entitled “Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Separate Statement In Support Of Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication”.

“[U]nless a motion for a sealing order is filed and served on or before December 1, 2025, in accordance with this ruling, the clerk is directed to transfer to the public file, the following documents lodged or filed under seal on October 6, 2025, by plaintiffs: (a) the document entitled “Confidential - Filed Under Seal Pursuant To 11/26/2024 Protective Order And Without Any Further Sealing Order Required – Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, For Summary Adjudication; Memorandum of Points and Authorities”; (b) the document entitled “Confidential - Filed Under Seal Pursuant To 11/26/2024 Protective Order And Without Any Further Sealing Order Required – Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice In Opposition To Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, For Summary Adjudication”; (c) the document entitled “Confidential - Filed Under Seal Pursuant To 11/26/2024 Protective Order And Without Any Further Sealing Order Required – Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement In Opposition To Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, For Summary Adjudication”; (d) the document entitled “Confidential - Filed Under Seal Pursuant To 11/26/2024 Protective Order And Without Any Further Sealing Order Required – Plaintiffs’ Compendium of Exhibits In Opposition To Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, For Summary Adjudication Volume 1 of 3”; (e) the document entitled “Confidential - Filed Under Seal Pursuant To 11/26/2024 Protective Order And Without Any Further Sealing Order Required – Plaintiffs’ Compendium of Exhibits In Opposition To Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, For Summary Adjudication Volume 2 of 3”; and (f) the document entitled “Confidential - Filed Under Seal Pursuant To 11/26/2024 Protective Order And Without Any Further Sealing Order Required – Plaintiffs’ Compendium of Exhibits In Opposition To Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, For Summary Adjudication Volume 3 of 3”.

“[U]nless a motion for a sealing order is filed and served on or before December 1, 2025, in accordance with this ruling, the clerk of the court is directed to transfer to the public file, the following documents filed or lodged under seal on October 10, 2025, by defendant Checkr, Inc.: (a) the document entitled “Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Evidentiary Objections In Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment Or, In The Alternative, Summary Adjudication; and (b) the document entitled “Defendant Checkr, Inc.’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement of Additional Facts”.”

In addition, the November 14 Order directs the clerk of the court to permanently delete records filed or lodged under seal by plaintiffs on October 10, 2025, and further described in that order.

On December 1, Checkr filed a motion for an order sealing the following documents (the Checkr Motion to Seal): (1) exhibits A, C, F, G, and I to the compendium of evidence (the Checkr Compendium) submitted by Checkr in support of the Checkr July MSJ; (2) portions of the separate statement submitted by Checkr in support of the Checkr July MSJ; (3) Checkr’s evidentiary objection no. 29; (4) portions of Checkr’s response to the separate statement submitted by Plaintiffs in support of Plaintiffs’ opposition to the Checkr July MSJ; (5) exhibits 1, 2, 12, 13 and portions of exhibits 3, 4 and 11 of compendium of exhibits (the Plaintiffs Compendium) submitted by Plaintiffs in support of their opposition to the Checkr July MSJ; (6) portions of the declaration of Douglas S. Wacker submitted by Plaintiffs in support of their opposition to the Checkr July MSJ; (7) portions of Plaintiffs’ opposition to the Checkr July MSJ; and (8) portions of the separate statement submitted by Plaintiffs in support of their opposition to the Checkr July MSJ. (Notice of Checkr Motion to Seal at p. 2, ¶¶ 1-8.)

In support of the Checkr Motion to Seal, Checkr submits a declaration of its counsel, Camilo Echavarria (attorney Echavarria), who states that Checkr and Uber are multi-national corporations with sprawling business dealings with a number of counterparties (such as customers, suppliers, and vendors), and that operate in what attorney Echavarria describes as “highly competitive industries”. (Echavarria Dec., ¶ 6.) Attorney Echavarria further states that third parties consistently seek advantages in their business dealings with, or competition against, Checkr and Uber, and that there is a substantial probability that they will use the documents which are the subject of the Checkr Motion to Seal to Checkr and Uber’s detriment, if those documents were publicly disclosed. (Ibid.)

Attorney Echavarria asserts that the materials or documents which are the subject of the Checkr Motion to Seal consist of deposition testimony and other documents which discuss or reflect confidential and competitively sensitive proprietary information of Checkr and the Uber Parties, including the terms of Checkr and the Uber Parties’ business relationship; Checkr’s affiliates, accounts, and business relationships; the methods, techniques and processes used by Checkr to perform and manage background checks; and Checkr’s pricing, competitive strategies, and corporate organization. (Echavarria Dec., ¶ 3.) As an example, attorney Echavarria states that the materials and documents include multiple versions or copies of a Master Services Agreement or “MSA” between Uber Technologies, Inc., and Checkr; and documents which discuss, analyze or reference the terms of the MSA, financial and pricing information, business and marketing plans, actual and potential customers and suppliers, and the skills and compensation of the parties’ employees. (Ibid.)

Attorney Echavarria contends that a customer, supplier, or vendor with a contract with Checkr, or with a desire to contract with Checkr, may use the terms of the MSA to seek more favorable terms or concessions than it would otherwise be able to obtain. (Echavarria Dec., ¶ 7.) Attorney Echavarria further contends that if a supplier or vendor of Checkr knows it supplies a key input to the services Checkr provides to Uber, and knows how much Checkr receives from Uber for those services, it might leverage Checkr’s contractual commitments to seek a higher price in its contract with Checkr. (Ibid.) Attorney Echavarria also asserts that if a competitor in the background services industry understands how Checkr structures its agreement with Uber, or knows what processes Checkr uses to deliver its services, that competitor can attempt to re-create those services and undercut Checkr’s relationship with Uber. (Ibid.)

According to attorney Echavarria, Checkr and Uber treat what attorney Echavarria describes as “the competitively sensitive proprietary information” included in the subject documents as “extremely sensitive”, and that the public disclosure of those documents “could materially undermine both Checkr’s and Uber’s competitive positions by (1) negatively impacting their business relationships with third parties, which could use the disclosed terms to demand similar or better deals with Checkr or Uber and (2) enable competitors to glean insight into Checkr’s and Uber’s ‘know how’ and strategies to undercut their businesses.” (Echavarria Dec., ¶¶ 4-5.)

The Uber Parties filed, also on December 1, a joinder to the Checkr Motion to Seal, and a motion (the Uber Motion to Seal) for an order sealing exhibits 1, 2, 12, and portions of exhibits 3 and 4 to the Plaintiffs Compendium; portions of the declaration of Douglas S. Wacker included with the Plaintiffs Compendium; portions of Plaintiffs’ opposition to the Checkr July MSJ; and portions of the separate statement filed by Plaintiffs in opposition to the Checkr July MSJ. (Notice of Uber Motion to Seal at pp. 2-5.)

The Uber Motion to Seal is supported by a declaration of Peter Sauerwein (Sauerwein), who is employed with Uber as a Senior Manager of Corporate Business Operations. (Sauerwein Dec., ¶ 1.) Sauerwein explains that Uber is a software company that develops proprietary software used to create digital marketplaces operated through “app-based platforms” (collectively, the Uber Apps). (Sauerwein Dec., ¶ 6.) Sauerwein states that the “Eats” platform operated by Portier enables users to request delivery services through the Uber Apps from independent third-party delivery providers. (Ibid.) As part of its business operations, Uber contracts with its subsidiaries to allow them to utilize specific intellectual property and technology owned by Uber. (Sauerwein Dec., ¶ 7.) An independent third-party delivery provider then uses the Uber Eats platform to receive lead generation services and connect with potential delivery requests from users. (Ibid.)

Sauerwein asserts that Uber operates in a highly competitive industry, and that the disclosure of its confidential and proprietary business information and trade secrets could injure Uber in the marketplace, and be harmful and damaging to Uber’s business. (Sauerwein Dec., ¶¶ 5-6.) According to Sauerwein, because the companies work in a highly competitive marketplace, the terms and conditions of the relationship between Uber and its subsidiaries is highly sensitive such that disclosure of that information would result in a hindrance and subjugation of Uber, who relies on confidentiality for continued success. (Sauerwein Dec., ¶ 8.) Sauerwein also asserts that the public disclosure of Uber’s agreements with its subsidiaries would enable Uber’s competitors to create or improve their own operations, thereby depriving Uber of its monetary investment. (Ibid.)

Sauerwein also states that Uber protects several types of information and documents from public disclosure because they could be of value to Uber’s competitors or used to cause competitive injury to Uber, and that the disclosure of any contracts with Uber’s subsidiaries would reveal the results of Uber’s market research, which is essential to its continued viability. (Sauerwein Dec., ¶¶ 9 & 11.) Sauerwein contends that Uber derives economic value from the fact that this information is not generally known or readily discoverable. (Sauerwein Dec., ¶ 11.)

To safeguard its confidential information, Uber also mandates, as a condition of employment, that all newly hired employees sign a “Confidential Information and Invention Assignment Agreement”, and guard Uber’s protected information. (Sauerwein Dec., ¶ 10.) In addition, an “Omnibus IP License Agreement” between the Uber Parties defines the term “Confidential Information”, and requires that the Uber Parties not disclose that “Confidential Information”, among other things. (Sauerwein Dec., ¶ 13.)

Sauerwein also describes “extensive precautions” that Uber undertakes to protect the secrecy and confidentiality of the “Confidential Information”, such as by maintaining that information in secure locations that require the use of security access cards or passwords by those persons authorized to access to those locations. (Sauerwein Dec., ¶ 14.) Uber also gives their employees detailed and frequent instruction about maintaining trade secrets and confidential information and preserving the secrecy of this information, and repeatedly instructs its personnel that the information has great value to Uber. (Ibid.)

Plaintiffs oppose the Checkr Motion to Seal.

On December 8, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary adjudication (the Plaintiffs MSA) of the issue of whether, by operating the Uber Eats platform, the Uber Parties owed a non-delegable duty of due care to the general public and Plaintiffs under the “Motor Carrier of Property Permit Act.” (Notice at p. ii, ll. 7-9.) The Uber Parties oppose that motion.

Analysis:

The Checkr Motion to Seal and the Uber Motion to Seal (collectively, the Sealing Motions) advance the same or effectively the same points and arguments for why an order sealing the records identified or described in those motions is justified under the circumstances present here. The Sealing Motions also each describe materials filed by Checkr and by Plaintiffs in support of or in opposition to the Checkr July MSJ only, and include no reference to any papers lodged in support of or in opposition to the Uber Motions. For these reasons, the court will address the Sealing Motions together.

“Nearly all jurisdictions, including California, have long recognized a common law right of access to public documents, including court records.

“This common law right is effectuated through a presumption of access. As articulated by California’s courts, this presumption means court records are ‘open to the public unless they are specifically exempted from disclosure by statute or are protected by the court itself due to the necessity of confidentiality.’ [Citations.]” (Overstock.com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 471, 483.) California Rules of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.552, “govern the sealing of court records. [Citation.] These rules are based on standards set forth” in NBC Subsidiary, Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178 (NBC Subsidiary). (Marino v. Rayant (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 846, 855.)

“A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record. The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(1).) Upon the filing of a motion for an order sealing a record, the court may, after a hearing, order that record to be filed under seal “only it if expressly finds fact that establish:

“(1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record;

“(2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record;

“(3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed;

“(4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and

“(5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d)(1)-(5); see also NBC Subsidiary, supra, 20 Cal.4th at pp. 1217–1218 & fn. 37-40.)

“[A] reasoned decision about sealing or unsealing records cannot be made without identifying and weighing the competing interests and concerns. Such a process is impossible without (1) identifying the specific information claimed to be entitled to such treatment; (2) identifying the nature of the harm threatened by disclosure; and (3) identifying and accounting for countervailing considerations. The burden of presenting information sufficient to accomplish the first two steps is logically placed upon the party seeking the sealing of the documents, who is presumptively in the best position to know what disclosures will harm him and how. This means at a minimum that the party seeking to seal documents, or maintain them under seal, must come forward with a specific enumeration of the facts sought to be withheld and specific reasons for withholding them.” (H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 894 (H.B. Fuller).)

The Checkr Motion to Seal includes an exhibit purporting to list, with specific citations, the records or portions of records for which Checkr seeks a sealing order. (Memorandum at p. 5, ll. 6-7 & Exh. A.) The notice of the Uber Motion to Seal also includes specific citations to each record or portions of each record for which the Uber Parties seek a sealing order.

The Checkr Motion to Seal asserts that all of the records or portions of the records described or identified in that motion each disclose confidential and competitively sensitive proprietary information, including the terms of the relationship between Checkr and Uber; Checkr’s competitive or confidential methods, strategies, techniques, or processes; Checkr’s pricing structures and business models; and its corporate organization. (Checkr Motion to Seal [Memorandum] at pp. 9-10.) That motion further asserts that deposition testimony that discusses, analyzes, or references the terms of the MSA or other records described in that motion, also reveal the same competitively sensitive information. (Checkr Motion to Seal [Memorandum] at p. 10.)

The Uber Motion To Seal also asserts that the records or portions of records described or identified in that motion primarily relate to the MSA which the Uber Parties assert was designated as confidential pursuant to a protective order dated November 26, 2024, and to excerpts from and iterations of the MSA; deposition testimony, including from corporate representatives, concerning or paraphrasing the terms of those agreements; the resulting relationship between Uber and Checkr including the parties’ obligations regarding business processes and pricing; and any other references to this same information which the parties undertake steps to safeguard. (Notice of Uber Motion to Seal at pp. 2-3; Memorandum at pp. 12-17.) The basis for the request to seal those records, or portions of those records, is that they “contain[] nonpublic, confidential information regarding the terms and conditions of Uber’s contractual relationship with vendors, including the [MSA].” (Ibid.)

In each of the Sealing Motions, Checkr and the Uber Parties contend that any disclosure of confidential proprietary information or trade secrets appearing in each of the records at issue would cause those parties to suffer economic and competitive loss, injury and harm; and that the parties’ interest in protecting their confidential proprietary information, including trade secrets, overcomes the public’s right to access that information. Checkr and the Uber Parties further argue that the sealing of purportedly commercially sensitive information necessary for the court to determine the Checkr July MSJ proposed in each of the Sealing Motions is the least restrictive means to preserve the parties’ proprietary interests.

As a threshold matter, the court’s review of the records or portions of those records that are the subject of the Sealing Motions shows that the sealing proposed by Checkr and the Uber Parties is not narrowly tailored to serve the overriding interest asserted in those motions.

For example, the Checkr Motion to Seal requests that the court order that the entirety of exhibit F to the Checkr Compendium, and exhibit 1 to the Plaintiffs Compendium be filed under seal. (Checkr Motion to Seal at p. 4, ¶ 1 & Exh. A, ¶ 3.) The Uber Motion to Seal also request an order sealing those exhibits. (Uber Motion to Seal at p. 12.) The parties here do not dispute that those exhibits contain the MSA.

Notwithstanding whether the MSA includes what Checkr and Uber describe as confidential proprietary information or trade secrets, the MSA also includes information which does not, on its face, appear confidential, proprietary, or to consist of any trade secrets including: the effective date of the MSA; the identity of the parties to the MSA; a general description of services provided by Checkr; terms generally requiring Uber to pay fees for services to be provided by Checkr (without referencing the amount of those fees) and related, general payment terms; general representations that the parties will comply with various laws and regulations; venue provisions; and other general or standard terms regarding, among other things, severability, waiver, modification, and assignment of the MSA. (See, e.g., Oct. 6, 2025, Pl. Compendium of Exhibits, Vol. 1 of 3, Exh. 1.) Though the Sealing Motions propose an order sealing the whole of the MSA, wholly absent from those motions is any sufficient reasoned argument showing why all of the information appearing in the MSA, including the information described above, is manifestly confidential or proprietary, or why the disclosure of that information would harm any overriding interest.

The Checkr Motion to Seal also proposes the sealing of excerpts from the deposition testimony of Elizabeth Zeiter (Zeiter) and Erin O’Keefe (O’Keefe). (Checkr Motion to Seal, Exh. A, ¶¶ 1-2.) As to Zeiter, the Checkr Motion to Seal includes a citation to “Exhibit A to Checkr’s Compendium, excerpts from Volume I of the deposition of Elizabeth Zeiter (PDF pages 6-16 to under seal version of Checkr’s Compendium of Evidence in Support of Checkr’s MSJ, filed on August 6, 2025)[.]” (Checkr Motion to Seal, Exh. A, ¶ 1.) The court’s review of that citation shows that the proposed sealing includes: an index of exhibits; the court reporter’s introduction and swearing in the witness; Zeiter’s current title; and whether Zeiter has ever been deposed. The Checkr Motion to Seal fails to explain why these matters constitute confidential proprietary information or trade secrets.

As to O’Keefe, the Checkr Motion to Seal includes a citation to “Exhibit C to Checkr’s Compendium, excerpts from Volume I ... (PDF pages 6-16 to under seal version of Checkr’s Compendium of Evidence in Support of Checkr’s MSJ, filed on August 6, 2025)[.]” (Checkr Motion to Seal, Exh. A, ¶ 2.) The court’s review of that citation shows that the proposed sealing would also include general introductions of counsel at the deposition of O’Keefe; testimony showing that O’Keefe is a designated corporate representative; testimony reflecting the steps taken by O’Keefe to prepare for the deposition; and other testimony which does not, on its face, disclose confidential proprietary information or any trade secrets.

Though it appears to the court that the Checkr Motion to Seal includes inaccurate or erroneous citations to the portions of the Zeiter and O’Keefe deposition transcripts, the court also notes that portions of exhibit A of the lodged Checkr Compendium are highlighted. Absent accurate citations to the record as required by the November 14 Order, the court will, for present purposes, assume without deciding that the Checkr Motion to Seal is directed to those highlighted portions.

The testimony highlighted in exhibit A of the Checkr Compendium includes a general discussion of the terms “transportation network company” (TNC) and “delivery network company” (DNC); whether certain companies are a TNC or DNC; the title and date of the MSA; whether the witness recognized the MSA; the manner in which Checkr employees refer to the MSA; the number of accounts between Uber and Checkr; the name of those accounts; and whether those account names were used in the MSA. (Checkr Compendium, Exh. A at pp. 16-17, 22-23, 30 & 40-41.) The Checkr Motion to Seal fails to explain why the subject matter of that testimony, which as noted above, is highlighted in the Checkr Compendium, includes confidential proprietary information or trade secrets.

Moreover, portions of the highlighted testimony which the Checkr Motion to Seal ostensibly proposes to seal, appears to relate to matters which have been publicly disclosed in these proceedings. (See, e.g., Checkr Compendium, Exh. A at pp. 40-41 [referencing “Uber Eats”].)

The transcript of the O’Keefe deposition contained in the Checkr Compendium also includes highlights of testimony regarding Uber’s “Eats” platform; a general discussion of whether Uber or its subsidiaries conduct background checks; whether O’Keefe was aware of the date the MSA was executed; whether local regulations apply to the MSA; and other matters which do not appear to contain confidential proprietary information or trade secrets. (See, e.g., Checkr Compendium, Ex. C at pp. 83, 137-138 & 170.) For the same reasons discussed above, these matters also appear in the public record of these proceedings.

Information appearing in Checkr’s evidentiary objection no. 29 also relates generally to the background check report performed on Burgher, including whether statutory exemptions apply. The broad, sweeping, general and conclusory arguments advanced in the Checkr Motion to Seal fails to explain why that information is confidential, proprietary, or describes trade secrets, or why disclosure of that information will harm any overriding interest. Furthermore, that evidentiary objection, on its face, includes information which is not manifestly confidential.

The same reasoning and analysis apply as to the question of whether the sealing proposed in the Uber Motion to Seal are narrowly tailored. For example, the Uber Motion to Seal also requests an order sealing the MSA in its entirety notwithstanding that the MSA contains additional information which does not appear to constitute confidential proprietary information or trade secrets.

In addition, the Uber Motion to Seal requests an order sealing portions of the declaration of Douglas S. Wacker (the Wacker declaration) which relate to the date the date of the MSA; the number of times the MSA was amended; whether Sauerwein verified the production of the MSA; and whether the MSA provides the terms under which Checkr agreed to perform services. (Uber Motion to Seal at p. 13 [referencing redacted portions of paragraphs 2-3 & 8-9 of the Wacker declaration]; cf. Oct. 6, 2025, Pl. Compendium of Exhibits at pdf pp. 31-34 & [Wacker Dec., ¶¶ 2-3 & 8-9].)

Though the examples provided above are intended to be illustrative but not exhaustive, the proposed, broad sealing of matters “that are manifestly not confidential in any sense of the word...” (H.B. Fuller, supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at p. 895), such as the matters described above, demonstrates that the sealing proposed in the Sealing Motions is not narrowly tailored. Checkr and the Uber Parties’ failure to narrowly tailor the proposed sealing also gives rise to some question as to whether “a less restrictive means of meeting that interest is not available.” (Savaglio v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 588, 597.)

Furthermore, the broad arguments, and general and conclusory information, presented in the Sealing Motions fails to sufficiently identify an overriding interest that would overcome the public’s right to access the records and portions of the records described or cited in each of those motions.

A court is “not obliged” to accept declarations submitted in support of a motion to seal “as dispositive. [Citations.] This is important because it [is] defendants’ burden to prove the existence of trade secrets [citations], and to overcome the presumption in favor of public access. [Citations.] If the trial court [finds] the declarations conclusory or otherwise unpersuasive, it could conclude ... that defendants had failed to demonstrate any ‘overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access....’ [Citation.]” (In re Providian Credit Card Cases (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 292, 301 (Providian).)

Absent from the declaration of attorney Echavarria is any information showing why attorney Echavarria has personal knowledge regarding any confidential, sensitive, or proprietary information of Checkr and the Uber Parties. The court may disregard statements made in declarations which are “argumentative, speculative and impermissible opinions, and also lack foundation and personal knowledge.” (Tuchscher Development Enterprises, Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port Dist. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1219, 1238.)

In addition, apart from generally asserting that all of the records or portions of the records described in the Sealing Motions contain trade secrets, the conclusory information appearing in the Sauerwein declaration fails to show why the proposed sealing, in each instance, would prevent the disclosure of any trade secrets as that term is defined in Civil Code section 3426.1, subdivision (d)(1)-(2). (Providian, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at pp. 305–306 [general discussion of declaration insufficient to show existence of trade secrets].)

Furthermore, and considering that the sealings proposed in each of the Sealing Motions do not appear, for reasons further discussed above, to narrowly tailored, the broad, general, and conclusory assertions and arguments which purport to apply to each record or portions of those records at issue, are insufficient to show which, if any, specific facts appearing in each of the records would, if disclosed, harm any identified interest. (H.B. Fuller, supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at p. 895.)

For all reasons discussed above, the Sealing Motions each fail sufficiently identify, for each proposed sealing, the nature of the harm that would be threatened if each of the records, or portions of those records, were publicly disclosed, or that there exist no less restrictive means of meeting the overriding interests asserted by Checkr and the Uber Parties. Furthermore, the Sealing Motions fail to identify or account for any countervailing considerations. For these and all further reasons discussed above, the court will deny the Sealing Motions.

It appears to the court that Plaintiffs did not intend to request that any record lodged by Plaintiffs be sealed. (See Opp. at p. 5 [noting that the lodging of records by Plaintiffs was “precautionary only”].) Relevant here as to the records lodged by Plaintiffs at issue in the Sealing Motions, a party who files with the court “records produced in discovery that are subject to a confidentiality agreement or protective order, and does not intend to request to have the records sealed, must:

“(i) Lodge the unredacted records subject to the confidentiality agreement or protective order and any pleadings, memorandums, declarations, and other documents that disclose the contents of the records, in the manner stated in (d);

“(ii) File copies of the documents in (i) that are redacted so that they do not disclose the contents of the records that are subject to the confidentiality agreement or protective order; and

“(iii) Give written notice to the party that produced the records that the records and the other documents lodged under (i) will be placed in the public court file unless that party files a timely motion or application to seal the records under this rule.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(3)(A)(i)-(iii).)

Information appearing in Plaintiffs’ opposition to the Checkr Motion to Seal also shows that Plaintiffs objected to the designation by Checkr and the Uber Parties’ of records as confidential, and served a notice on November 19, 2025, addressing the records lodged by Plaintiffs under seal. (Opp. at p. 4, ll. 1-3; see also Wacker Dec., ¶ 7, Exh. 6 [Nov. 19, 2025, letter].)

The California Rules of Court provide: “If the party that produced the documents and was served with the notice under (A)(iii) fails to file a motion or an application to seal the records within 10 days or to obtain a court order extending the time to file such a motion or an application, the clerk must promptly transfer all the documents in (A)(i) from the envelope, container, or secure electronic file to the public file. If the party files a motion or an application to seal within 10 days or such later time as the court has ordered, these documents are to remain conditionally under seal until the court rules on the motion or application and thereafter are to be filed as ordered by the court.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(3)(B).)

Under the totality of the circumstances present here, and for all reasons discussed above, the court will, as to the records lodged by Plaintiffs on October 6, 2025, and described in the ruling set forth in the November 14 Order and above, direct the clerk of the court to transfer those records to the public file.

As to the records lodged by Checkr on July 25, August 6, and October 10, 2025, and described in the November 14 Order, to the extent Checkr elects to unseal and file those materials in the public record, Checkr must notify the court, on or before March 9, 2026, that those lodged records are to be filed unsealed in the public record. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(6).) If Checkr fails to notify the court that any record lodged by Checkr on July 25, August 6, and October 10, 2026, is to be filed unsealed by the deadline stated above, that record shall be permanently deleted, and not considered by the court. Considering that Checkr may notify the court that a lodged record is to be filed unsealed, and to permit sufficient time for the clerk of the court to, if appropriate, file any lodged record unsealed, the court will continue the hearing on the Checkr July MSJ.

In the interests of judicial efficiency, the court will also continue the hearing on the Solis/Alvarado MSJ, the Punitive Damages MSJ, and the Plaintiffs MSA. The parties are also requested to note that, to the extent a party had lodged any record in support of or in opposition to the Solis/Alvarado MSJ, the Punitive Damages MSJ, or the Plaintiffs MSA under seal, the court will not consider any such record absent the filing and service of an appropriate and timely motion to seal, and a determination of that motion.