Ehret v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Filing 93

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen denying 90 Defendant's Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge (emclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/31/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

CAREN EHRET,

9

Plaintiff,
v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-14-0113 EMC

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

12

Defendant.
___________________________________/

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER
OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
(Docket No. 90)

13
14

Pending before the Court is Defendant's motion for relief from Magistrate Judge Ryu's order

15

granting Plaintiff's motion to compel. Judge Ryu ordered Defendant, in relevant part, to produce

16

documents from Travis Kalanick and Ryan Graves – Defendant’s Chief Executive Officer and Vice

17

President of Operations, respectively. Dkt. No. 82. Judge Ryu found that these custodians were

18

likely to have relevant documents insofar as pricing structure and gratuity levels were the type of

19

decision that the “CEO and VP were likely to have been involved in.” Transcript of Nov. 26, 2014

20

Proceeding at 10:2-3 (Dkt. No. 84). Judge Ryu rejected Defendant’s argument that because

21

Plaintiff’s discovery into the e-mails of Defendant’s general managers “would capture most of the

22

same information,” discovery into Mr. Kalanick’s and Mr. Grave’s e-mails would be unduly

23

burdensome. Id. at 10:4-11.

24

The Court finds that Judge Ryu’s decision is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.

25

See Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 268 F.R.D. 344, 348 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (“A magistrate judge’s

26

discovery order may be modified or set aside if it is ‘clearly erroneous or contrary to law.’” (quoting

27

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)). That Judge Ryu’s order may require Defendant to review approximately

28

1

21,000 documents does not represent an improper burden given the potential role of Defendant’s

2

CEO and Vice President of Operations in Defendant’s challenged conduct.

3

Finally, the Court finds unpersuasive Defendant’s argument that any ordered discovery

4

should be stayed until after resolution of Plaintiff’s class certification motion. Defendant argues that

5

Plaintiff has previously asserted that a motion for class certification could be brought prior to

6

Defendant’s production of emails. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 59, ¶ 20(c) (“Plaintiff would like to file a

7

motion for class certification as soon as possible and believes she can do so after Defendant’s initial

8

production of documents (i.e., before Defendant’s production of emails and ESI).”). The Court

9

declines to stay discovery based on Plaintiff’s prior statements that she “believed” such a prediscovery certification motion would be possible, particularly in light of Defendant’s likely

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

argument in opposition to class certification that its challenged gratuity and pricing structure

12

practices were not the result of a centralized decision. Further, Defendant has not identified any

13

reliance on Plaintiff’s statement that would render granting this discovery prior to class certification

14

prejudicial.

15

Defendant’s motion is DENIED.

16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
Dated: December 31, 2014
20
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2