Federal Judge Rejects Lyft’s ‘Competitive Harm’ Claims in Attempt to Seal Safety Procedures, Storage Information

Rideshare provider Lyft’s attempts to seal information regarding certain safety procedures and its storage of information for “competitive harm” failed in part Wednesday after a federal judge in Pennsylvania concluded there was no good cause to redact outdated policies, among other things.

In an Oct. 9 opinion, U.S. District Judge Karen S. Marston of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in part denied Lyft’s requests to seal numerous documents in ongoing litigation with the plaintiff, Jane Doe A.F., who filed a negligence suit against the company after allegedly being sexually assaulted by one of its drivers.

In Doe v. Lyft, the court determined there was no good cause to seal documents relating to how long Lyft stored the audio recording of calls between its safety team and riders, or information relating to its internal operations when responding to user safety reports, specifically the names of its platform and certain terms used, the opinion said.

This decision comes following an order earlier this year granting Lyft’s motion to dismiss numerous of the plaintiff’s claims, including counts for negligent supervision, negligent performance of undertaking to render services, and misrepresentation.

Both parties later moved to redact or seal certain documents. Doe filed a motion to compel, and a brief, which included redactions. She also filed an unredacted version of this brief under seal, which she later sought to maintain.

Lyft also filed a redacted version of its brief and exhibits on the public docket, and an unredacted version under seal, which it too looked to keep under seal. However, the court denied both of these requests, finding both parties failed to demonstrate the sealing order was warranted under the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit’s standard in a 2019 decision in In re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability Litigation.

Lyft filed a renewed motion to file under seal its opposition to Doe’s motion to compel in July, which the court granted in part this week.

Lyft argued information showing its internal operations and document storage and retention policies should be redacted, which the court granted to an extent, concluding there was good cause to redact information about the purpose and functionality of the company’s “Zendesk” platform, which isn’t public. According to the court, this information would violate Lyft’s privacy interests and runs the risk of causing the company competitive harm.

However, the court disagreed with Lyft that the public disclosure of the recording information “would cause a risk of competitive harm,” pointing to Lyft’s own admission that the policy is outdated, and that the information has been on the public docket since June 2024.

“Between its presence on the public docket and the fact that it is an outdated policy, the court finds that the risk of competitive harm is significantly reduced. That reduction tips the scales in favor of keeping this information public,” Marston said.

Lyft’s request to seal information relating to its internal operations, policies, and procedures when responding to user safety reports, specifically the names of its platform and certain terms used, was also denied. The court determined the information it sought to redact extended “beyond the way in which it responds, tracks, and handles safety reports on its platform,” and instead, it sought to redact the name of its platform “Compass workflow,” and the term “workflow.”

“Neither of these terms carries the same risk of competitive harm or threatens Lyft’s privacy interests to the same extent as the disclosure of how these workflows operate. Thus, the court cannot find good cause for redacting these terms,” Marston said. “Lyft may, however, redact information about how it uses these workflows because this information does risk competitive harm and could violate a legitimate privacy interest. Indeed, the way it addresses safety complaints on its platforms is critical to this litigation, suggesting that production of these documents will promote fairness and efficiency during discovery.”

However, Lyft’s requests to seal documents that would disclose its process for addressing safety complaints on its platform, information relating to Lyft’s internal system for storing user data, two images revealing communications between the company’s safety team and the plaintiff, and information showing how the company’s monitors connected accounts on the Lyft platform, were all granted by the court.

Similarly, Marston agreed to seal private information about Lyft users who weren’t parties in the case, and information relating to the training received by company safety team members.

Doe’s attorney, Samuel A. Haaz, of Saltz Mongeluzzi & Bendesky in Philadelphia, declined to comment.

Lyft’s attorney, Matthew N. Klebanoff, of Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller in Philadelphia, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.