P-J



(3

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF 
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING

Rosier, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company,
Plaintiff.

.

KING KELLER 

and DAVID COPLEY,

Defendants.

 

INCL,
Plaintiff,

V.

KING KELLER ROI-IRBACK,
and DAVID 

Defendants

 

 

No. 152297392 SEA

ORDF. EN (ii PREI I NAR 


THIS MATTER came on for hearing upon Plaintiffs1 Motions for Preliminary

Injunction to prevent the release by King County under the Public Records Act ltC?x-t'
42.56. ofthe number oflicenses that have been issued in Seattle to and LIher tlrit'ers.

Rasicr is the entity that licenses Uber technology. The eases were consolidated this



 

 

 

ORDER 

Page of}

 





U.

[i

 

 

The court has reviewed and considered the following documents as as the
argument of counsel:
1. Rasier?s Motion for Preliminary Injunction;

2. Declaration ofBroolte Stcger in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction:

La.)

Declaration of Rachel Bowe in Support ofPlaintiff Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order;
4. Declaration ofBrooke Stegcr in Support of Plaintiff nitration for Temporary

Restraining Order;



King County?s Response to Motion for Prelimint-try Injunction:
Declaration of Sean Boufliou;
Declaration ofAnty Eiden;

Keller Rohrhach?s Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction;

rot-verda-

Declaration ofGabriel Verdugo in Opposition to Rasier?s Motion for Prelintint-try

Injunction and attachments;

10. Motion for Preliminary Injunction;

Declaration of'l?odd Kelsay in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction:

12. King County?s Response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction:

l3. Declaration ofSean Bouftiou in Support ofliing County?s Response to Motion for
Preliminary Injunction;

l4. Keller Rohrhack?s Oppostion to Lyft?s Motion for Preliminary injunction:

Iii. Declaration ofGabriel Verdugo in Opposition to l.yft?s Motion for Preliminary

Injunction and attachments.

In order to grant the Motion for Preliminary Injunction the court must find that the
plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits ot'tltcir motions for relief. RCW 59.565340 says a
court can only enjoin release of information if it finds that examination of the requested record
?would clearly not be in the public interest and would substantially and irreparath any
person. . . 

The court finds that neither Rosier nor has established a liltelihootl of succeeding

on the merits ofits claim that the information requested by Keller Rohrhacli is exempt from

DENYING

Page 2 ot??

 

 

 





 

 

disclosure under the Public Records Act. or that disclosure is not clearly in the public interest
or that disclosure would substantially and irreparably damage either Rasier or Lyell.

It is unlikely that a court would ?nd that the gross number of licenses issued is a trade
secret as de?ned in RCW 19.103010. and therefore constitutes an exemption under the l?li??k.
Nor is it likely that a court would ?nd that the gross number of licenses issued meets the
de?nition o1??proprietai?tr data? under RCW 42.56.2700 liltb). or that there is anything unique
about the number of licenses.

As the county pointed out, the county?r and city have long regulated l'orwhire
transportation, and all other transportation licensing information is public. lnti'n'nuition about
the number of for-hire cars is a part ot?the county-wide public discussion about trrn'isptn'taLion
planning. It is unlikely that a court would find that release ol'the information requested here is

not clearlyr in the public interest.

  

rr [8 so ORDERED this ctr/Q7

day of

EDGE. BARBARA A. MACK

 

 (~lr
pt. 

ORDER DEN "r'll?JCi
l?RFl 

Page 3 of 3