Reardon et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Filing 139

ORDER re 129 Joint Letter Brief Regarding Discovery. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 03/11/2016. (kawlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/11/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JAMES LATHROP, et al.,

Case No. 14-cv-05678-JST (KAW)

Plaintiffs,
8
v.

ORDER REGARDING JOINT
DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF

9
10

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Re: Dkt. No. 129

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

The parties to the above-captioned case have filed a joint discovery letter regarding screen

14

flows and three data profiles that purportedly contain the text messages giving rise to this putative

15

class action. (Dkt. No. 129-3.) The matter was referred to the undersigned for resolution. (Dkt.

16

No. 136.) Having conducted a preliminary review of the parties' joint letter, the Court finds that

17

the filing is deficient.

18

First, Plaintiffs have not identified the propounded discovery that entitles them to the

19

information sought. (See id. at 7 ("Further, these new requests are not included in any of

20

Plaintiffs' requests for production and were not raised in the parties' previous joint discovery letter

21

(which this letter supplements), preventing Uber from meaningfully raising its objections.").)

22

Second, the parties have used the instant filing to present a truncated motion to compel as opposed

23

to a true joint letter. For example, Plaintiffs drafted their half of the joint letter, Defendant

24

provided its response, and Plaintiffs added a reply. (Joint Ltr. at 1 n.1.) This format does not

25

comply with this Court's General Standing Order. (See Judge Westmore's General Standing Order

26

¶ 13.) The use of this format also shows that the parties have not sufficiently met and conferred.

27

In their "reply," Plaintiffs raise a new proposal, apparently in part due to the "newly revealed

28

information" contained in Defendant's portion of the joint letter—an appropriate topic for a meet

1

and confer. The parties shall properly meet and confer so that they can each consider their

2

respective proposals and arrive at an appropriate compromise. Third, Plaintiffs do not address

3

Rule 26(b)(1)'s relevancy and proportionality requirements. Given the substantial volume of the

4

information sought, Plaintiffs shall be sure to do so if the parties file a new joint letter brief.

5

Furthermore, if the parties file a joint letter in the future, they shall promptly lodge courtesy copies

6

of their filing, and if the parties seek to file any information under seal, those courtesy copies shall

7

comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(2).

8

For these reasons, the parties' joint discovery letter brief is TERMINATED.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

Dated: 03/11/2016
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2