Otey v. Crowdflower, Inc. et al

Filing 125

Discovery Order re: 112 Discovery Letter BriefRegarding Defendants' Subpoenas to Other Crowdsourcing Companies filed by Christopher Otey. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 6/24/2013. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/24/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CHRISTOPHER OTEY,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

No. C 12-5524 JST (MEJ)
DISCOVERY ORDER
RE: DKT. NO. 112

9
CROWDFLOWER, INC., et al.,
10
Defendants.
_____________________________________/

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13

Before the Court is the parties’ joint discovery dispute letter, filed June 13, 2013. Dkt. No.

14

112. The letter concerns CrowdFlower’s third-party subpoenas to three Requesters seeking “records

15

reflecting the dates and times spent performing tasks through [AMT] or other similar such providers,

16

including a description of the task(s) performed.” Id. at 7. For the reasons stated in the Court’s

17

April 11, 2013 Order, Plaintiff’s other employment or receipt of other income is irrelevant to the

18

question of whether Plaintiff was Defendants’ employee or whether he was an independent

19

contractor. See Order at 2:19-3:7, Dkt. No. 85. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for a protective

20

order is GRANTED. The third party Requesters need not respond to Defendants’ subpoenas

21

because they are not likely to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED

23
24
25
26
27
28

Dated: June 24, 2013
_______________________________
Maria-Elena James
United States Magistrate Judge