1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY RASIER, LLC, a Delaware corporation, 9 Plaintiff, 10 11 v. PORT OF SEATTLE; and PAUL OSBORN, 12 Defendants. 13 14 15 ) ) ) No. ) ) COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE ) RELIEF ) ) ) ) Rasier, LLC (“Rasier”) for its complaint against the Port of Seattle (“the Port”) and Paul Osborn (“Osborn”), states and alleges as follows: 16 I. NATURE OF ACTION 17 1. This action seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, under RCW 18 42.56.540, 42.56.070(1), 42.56.270(11), 42.56.230(7)(c), 42.56.330(7).and 19.108.020, and 19 under CR 65, to prevent the Port from disclosing Rasier’s proprietary information and trade 20 secrets, and driver’s personal information, pursuant to a records request from Osborn. 21 II. PARTIES 22 2. Plaintiff Rasier is an LLC formed under Delaware law and registered to do 23 business in Washington. Rasier conducts business in Seattle, Washington, among other 24 places. 25 3. The Port of Seattle is a Washington municipal corporation responsible for, 26 among other things, the operation of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (“SEATAC”). It 27 has its principal offices at 2711 Alaskan Way, Seattle, Washington 98121. COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 1 129264.0016/7399027.3 LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200 P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107 1 4. Defendant Greg Osborn sent a request to the Port of Seattle demanding, “Uber, 2 Lyft and Wingz SEATAC detailed pick-up and drop-off data showing date and time of each 3 event for the last 12 months.” Osborn is joined as a party because of his interest in the subject 4 of this action. See Burt v. Dep’t. of Corr., 168 Wn.2d 828 (2010). 5 6 7 8 9 III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. The Court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under RCW 42.56.540 and RCW 2.08.010. 6. Venue is proper under RCW 42.56.540 because the public records at issue are maintained in King County, Washington. 10 IV. FACTS 11 A. Rasier’s Operations at SEATAC 12 7. Rasier is a wholly owned subsidiary of nonparty Uber Technologies, Inc. 13 (“Uber”). Uber is a private technology company that has developed software (the “Uber 14 App”) that enables independent third-party transportation providers (“Drivers”) to receive and 15 respond to requests for transportation from interested riders (“Riders”). Rasier licenses the 16 Uber App from Uber. 17 8. In King County and the Port of Seattle, Rasier is authorized to operate as a 18 transportation network company (“TNC”) pursuant to a license issued by King County and a 19 Transportation Network Company Pilot Program Operating Agreement (the “Agreement”) 20 with the Port of Seattle. Pursuant to King County regulations and the Agreement, Rasier 21 (among other things) screens potential Drivers, grants Driver accounts and licenses the use of 22 the Uber App to Drivers for the primary purpose of connecting with riders, and provides other 23 services related to those activities. The Drivers pay Rasier a fee for their use of the Uber App 24 and associated services. 25 9. 26 to the Agreement. Drivers using the Uber App drop off and pick up Riders at SEATAC pursuant 27 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 2 129264.0016/7399027.3 LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200 P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107 1 10. As a part of that Agreement, Rasier agreed to provide specified detailed 2 information about rides beginning and ending at SEATAC (“ride data”) to the Port for the 3 Port’s operational purposes only, including specifically to allow the Port to audit the per-trip 4 fee owed by Rasier to the Port under the Agreement. Rasier pays a per-trip fee to the Port 5 based on the number of passenger pickups at SEATAC. 6 11. Rasier’s ride data is confidential and proprietary to Rasier. It is not publicly 7 known, and Rasier closely guards this competitive information as a trade secret. 8 Agreement between Rasier and the Port expressly obligates the Port to refrain from publicly 9 disclosing information provided by Rasier to the Port absent written permission from Rasier 10 or if the Port is required by law to disclose it. In the event that the Port believes it is required 11 by law to disclose Rasier’s ride data, the parties’ Agreement requires that the Port provide 12 Rasier with notice so Rasier can seek relief from the Court. The 13 B. The Public Records Act Request 14 12. On July 10, 2018, Defendant Osborn submitted a request to the Port (“the 15 Request”) seeking the following information: “Uber, Lyft and Wingz SEATAC detailed pick- 16 up and drop-off data showing date and time of each event for the last 12 months.” 17 13. The Request did not specify under what authority it was made, but the Port 18 received the request via its portal under Washington’s Public Records Act, obligating it to 19 respond and/or release the requested records. 20 understands that Osborn seeks this ride data for commercial purposes. 21 14. Upon information and belief, Rasier On July 19, 2018, the Port notified Rasier of the Request, and requested that 22 Rasier provide the Port with an explanation of whether Rasier believes the ride data is exempt 23 from public disclosure. 24 15. On August 13, 2018, Rasier submitted a letter to the Port objecting to 25 disclosure of the ride data, on the grounds that the data are trade secrets and exempt from 26 public disclosure under the Public Records Act. The next day, the Port responded that Rasier 27 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 3 129264.0016/7399027.3 LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200 P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107 1 would “need to seek injunctive relief pursuant to RCW 42.56.540 to prevent the release of 2 these records.” 3 C. The Ride Data Are Rasier’s Trade Secrets 4 16. The records the Port intends to release in response to the Request are the 5 monthly reports of ride data submitted by Rasier to the Port from June 2017 through June 6 2018. The ride data in these reports detail minute-by-minute trip-level data for thousands of 7 rides and include more than a dozen data points for each of those rides, including whether a 8 ride originated as a pick up or drop-off, the exact timestamp of each ride to or from SeaTac 9 Airport, and identifying information connected with each driver using the Uber App to 10 facilitate a ride to or from SeaTac Airport. The ride data reveal information regarding, among 11 other things, supply and demand for transportation requested through Rasier’s network, 12 allowing a reader to deduce sales volume trends on a monthly, daily, and even hourly basis. 13 Additionally, the driver-identifying information is so specific that it would permit the 14 identification and tracking of individual driver movements by the minute. 15 17. The ride data requested has significant economic value, actual and potential, 16 because it is not generally known or readily ascertainable to other persons (including Rasier’s 17 competitors in the Seattle market) who would derive economic value and commercial 18 advantage from its disclosure. Specifically, the reports received by the Port from TNCs as a 19 result of operations at SEATAC would reveal the exact size of demand for TNC business and 20 the specific scope of Rasier’s operations, including peak supply and demand times and growth 21 data at SEATAC, to Rasier’s competitors including the TNC, rental car, and taxi industries. 22 18. Rasier uses the information contained in the ride data to make strategic 23 business decisions regarding matters such as pricing and promotional activities, and to 24 evaluate the impact of those decisions. The confidentiality of this information is essential 25 because, were it publicly disclosed, Rasier’s competitors would gain substantial insight into 26 its operations and promotions in the competitive market for airport transportation, giving 27 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 4 129264.0016/7399027.3 LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200 P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107 1 Rasier’s competitors an advantage, and the ability to determine whether, when, and how to 2 compete in the market. 3 19. Moreover, the driver information that is contained in the ride data is akin to a 4 customer list, and is also protectable as a trade secret. Rasier makes substantial efforts to 5 recruit and retain drivers, and the confidentiality of this list is paramount, because competitors 6 would make efforts to recruit away those drivers if their identities were known. Moreover, 7 revealing information about the drivers’ movements would pose significant privacy and safety 8 concerns for drivers. 9 20. Rasier has made substantial efforts to maintain the secrecy of this ride data. 10 Among other measures, Rasier marks the monthly spreadsheets it provides to the Port as 11 “confidential” and/or “confidential and proprietary information.” Within Rasier, the ride data 12 is protected by industry-standard security and risk management protocols. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21. The ride data at issue therefore constitutes Rasier’s trade secret, RCW 19.108.010(4), and is exempt from disclosure under RCW 42.56.070(1). 22. Similarly, the ride data is Rasier’s proprietary, commercially sensitive financial information. The ride data is therefore exempt from disclosure under RCW 42.56.270(11). 23. Additionally, the license plate numbers included in the ride data are exempt from disclosure under RCW 42.56.230(7)(c) and RCW 42.56.330(7). D. Disclosure Would Cause Irreparable Harm and is Not in the Public Interest 24. If the ride data sought by Osborn and contained in these reports were publicly 20 21 disclosed, Rasier would suffer a substantial and irreparable competitive disadvantage, which 22 could substantially impair its business. 23 25. Forcing the disclosure of proprietary data and trade secrets is not in the public 24 interest, as it poses a significant risk of chilling both innovation and data sharing. This would 25 clearly not be in the public interest, and would cause substantial and irreparable harm both to 26 Rasier’s business interests, and to vital government interests in encouraging cooperation and 27 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 5 129264.0016/7399027.3 LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200 P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107 1 data sharing. 2 incentives for companies to commit their resources toward doing business in Washington, and 3 further incentivizes companies doing business here to share their sensitive information with 4 regulators and other public entities without fear of public disclosure. 5 26. The public interest favors the protection of trade secrets, which provides Forcing the disclosure of personal identifying information of individual 6 drivers, including the timing and direction of their movements, is also not in the public 7 interests, as it poses significant safety risks to drivers, as well as security risks at SEATAC. 8 9 10 11 12 V. CLAIM FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 27. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 25, above, are incorporated herein by reference. 28. Rasier has a clear legal or equitable right to enjoin disclosure of its proprietary information and trade secrets, as well as confidential information regarding its drivers. 13 29. Rasier has a well-grounded fear of invasion of that right. 14 30. Unless the Port is preliminarily, and thereafter permanently, enjoined from 15 16 releasing Rasier’s ride data, Rasier will be substantially and irreparably harmed. 31. Rasier has no adequate remedy at law to prevent the harm that will result if 17 Seattle were to publicly release Rasier’s proprietary information and trade secrets, or its 18 drivers’ confidential information. 19 32. The public interest does not favor such disclosure. 20 33. Accordingly, under RCW 7.40.020, RCW 42.56.540 and RCW 19.108.020, 21 Rasier is entitled to a temporary restraining order, and thereafter preliminary and permanent 22 injunctions, enjoining the Port from disclosing the proprietary and trade-secret ride data 23 contained in Rasier’s monthly reports, whether directly or in the form of other documents that 24 aggregate and/or otherwise reveal Rasier’s trade secrets. 25 26 27 VI. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Rasier requests relief in its favor and against the Port of Seattle as follows: COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 6 129264.0016/7399027.3 LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200 P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107 1 2 A. injunctive relief prohibiting the Port from disclosing Rasier’s ride data; and 3 4 5 A temporary restraining order, preliminary injunctive relief, and permanent B. The granting of such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. DATED: September 28, 2018. LANE POWELL PC 6 7 11 By/s/Heidi B. Bradley Heidi B. Bradley, WSBA No. 35759 bradleyh@lanepowell.com Aaron P. Brecher, WSBA No. 47212 Telephone: 206.223.7000 Facsimile: 206.223.7107 Attorneys for Plaintiff Rasier, LLC 12 Counsel for Plaintiff Rasier, LLC 8 9 10 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 7 129264.0016/7399027.3 LANE POWELL PC 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 4200 P.O. BOX 91302 SEATTLE, WA 98111-9402 206.223.7000 FAX: 206.223.7107