O'Connor et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 447

ORDER RE 446 CLASS NOTICE. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 1/5/2016. (emclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DOUGLAS O'CONNOR, et al., Plaintiffs, 8 9 Case No. 13-cv-03826-EMC ORDER RE CLASS NOTICE v. Docket No. 446 10 Defendants. 12 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 11 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., 13 On January 4, 2016, the parties submitted a Joint Statement and Stipulated Proposed 14 Schedule Regarding Class Notice. Docket No. 446. The Court has reviewed the Joint Statement 15 and resolves the issues raised by the parties as follows. 16 First, with respect to drivers who failed to provide tax classification data, Uber is to review 17 its records to determine if the driver is listed as being paid as an individual or as a business. Any 18 drivers to whom payment was not clearly made to a business shall be included in the class list. 19 Ambiguities shall be resolved in favor of inclusion in the class for purposes of class notice. 20 Second, drivers who changed their classification over time must be included in the class. 21 While their damages may be limited to the period in which they drove under their individual 22 name, these drivers are still class members and should receive class notice. 23 Third, while the parties appear to agree that a single notice should be disseminated to all 24 drivers, the Court will require that separate notices go out for class and non-class members. 25 Issuing a single notice creates ambiguity for drivers as to whether or not they are class members, 26 and whether they will need to act in order to preserve their rights. A single class notice sent to 27 class members only will minimize confusion. 28 Fourth, the Court will not stay dissemination of class notice pending the appeal. The Court 1 has already denied Uber’s motion to stay the entire case (see Docket No. 429), and the trial is set 2 to proceed on June 20, 2016. Any further delays in issuing class notice will likely disrupt the trial 3 schedule. Fifth, the class notice shall include an opt-out mechanism, the simplicity of which shall be 4 5 as similar to the opt-out function ordered by the Court as to Uber’s arbitration agreement (i.e., a 6 hyperlink that brings up a pre-addressed e-mail and does not require the recipient to draft an e- 7 mail from scratch) as possible. See Docket No. 435. The parties are to meet-and-confer as to the 8 revised class notice and opt-out mechanism, and must submit their proposed notice by Thursday, 9 January 7, 2016. 1 Finally, the following deadlines will apply in this case: 10 Deadline for parties to submit further revisions to class notice. Deadline for production of class list, with e-mail addresses, to Notice Administrator Deadline to complete dissemination of notice and set up of neutral website 12 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 11 13 14 15 Opt-out deadline Non-expert discovery cut-off Expert Reports 16 17 18 19 Expert-discovery cut-off 20 January 15, 2016 Within 14 days of receipt of list of notice recipients by Notice Administrator, but no later than January 29, 2016 60 days from dissemination of notice 30 days after opt-out deadline Opening reports by 30 days after opt-out deadline Rebuttal reports by 14 days after filing of opening reports 14 days after filing of rebuttal reports No further dispositive motions will be permitted. 21 22 January 7, 2016 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 5, 2016 23 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 1 The Court notes that both parties appear to have requested that the Court delay issuance of the corrective notice as to the arbitration agreement (see Docket No. 435); Uber seeks a complete stay while Plaintiffs request that the corrective notice be delayed until after the class notice process in this case is complete. The Court will address this request in its order on Uber’s motion to stay (see Docket No. 439). 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?