Public utility commission properly denied a protective order for trip data requested from Lyft based on a mobile ride-sharing application because the trip data was not proprietary information and did not reveal sales patterns. Affirmed and cross-appeal dismissed.
September 16, 2016 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
Public Utility Commission • Protective Order • Proprietary Information • Motion to Intervene • Mootness
Lyft Inc. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, PICS Case No. 16-1131 (Pa. Commw. Aug. 31, 2016) Simpson, J. (28 pages).
Public utility commission properly denied a protective order for trip data requested from Lyft based on a mobile ride-sharing application because the trip data was not proprietary information and did not reveal sales patterns. Affirmed and cross-appeal dismissed.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Consulting Magazine recognizes leaders in technology across three categories Leadership, Client Service and Innovation.
Celebrate outstanding achievement in law firms, chambers, in-house legal departments and alternative business structures.
We are seeking an associate to join our Employee Benefits practice. Candidates should have three to six years of employee benefits experienc...
Associate attorney position at NJ Immigration Law firm: Leschak & Associates, LLC, based in Freehold, NJ, is looking for a full time ass...
Duane Morris LLP has an immediate opening for a senior level, highly motivated litigation associate to join its dynamic and growing Employme...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
