Reardon et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Filing 66

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 63 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER To Amend Scheduling Order with Joint Declaration filed by Jennifer Reilly, Justin Bartolet, Jonathan Grindell, Sandeep Pal, James Lathrop, Julie McKinney. Plaintiffs&# 039; expert designation due 2/19/2016. Defendant's expert designation due 3/18/2016. Plaintiffs' Motion for class certification due 5/20/2016. Opposition due 6/20/2016. Replies due 7/5/2016. Further Case Management Conference set for 9/21/2016 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on November 2, 2015. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Hassan A. Zavareei (SBN 181547)
[e-mail]
TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 808
Washington, DC 20036
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs James Lathrop, Julie
McKinney, Jonathan Grindell, Sandeep Pal,
Jennifer Reilly, and Justin Bartolet
James G. Snell (SBN 173070)
[e-mail]
PERKINS COIE LLP
3150 Porter Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant Uber Technologies,
Inc.

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15
16
17
18
19

JAMES LATHROP, JULIE MCKINNEY,
JONATHAN GRINDELL, SANDEEP PAL,
JENNIFER REILLY, and JUSTIN BARTOLET
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated,

Civil Action No.: 14-cv-05678-JST
Honorable Jon S. Tigar
STIPULATION TO AMEND
SCHEDULING ORDER

Plaintiffs,

20

v.

21

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

22
23
24
25
26
27

Defendant.
Plaintiffs James Lathrop, Julie McKinney, Jonathan Grindell, Sandeep Pal, Jennifer Reilly,
and Justin Bartolet (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Defendant”),
by and through their respective attorneys of record, stipulate and agree as follows:
WHEREAS, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on February 27, 2015 (Dkt. No. 25);
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs served their first set of document requests on May 21, 2015;

28
STIPULATION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER

1

WHEREAS, Defendant served objections to that discovery on June 22, 2015, objecting on a

2 variety of grounds, including objecting in light of the then-pending motion to dismiss;
3

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs served their first set of interrogatories on June 15, 2015;

4

WHEREAS, Defendant responded to that discovery on July 14, 2015;

5

WHEREAS, on July 19, 2015, the Court granted in part, and denied in part, the motion to

6 dismiss (Dkt. No. 49);
7

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs also served two additional sets of interrogatories on July 30, 2015 and

8 August 7, 2015 respectively and an additional set of document requests on July 30, 2015;
9

WHEREAS, counsel for Plaintiffs met and conferred with then-Counsel for Defendant on

10 numerous occasions—both in writing and via telephone—about discovery;
11

WHEREAS, on August 6, 2015, Defendant served its first document production;

12

WHEREAS, on August 10, 2015, Plaintiffs’ counsel proposed search terms for ESI

13 discovery and Defendant agreed to those search terms with no revisions;
14

WHEREAS, on or about September 10, 2015, counsel for Plaintiffs learned that Uber was

15 substituting its counsel. Uber filed its Notice of Consent to Substitution of Counsel on September
16 14, 2015. (Dkt. No. 59). This Court entered an order substituting counsel on September 15, 2015
17 (Dkt. No. 60). Upon their entry into the case, substituted counsel for Defendant requested a two18 week extension to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery, which Plaintiffs agreed to;
19

WHEREAS, on or about September 24, 2015, Plaintiffs initiated service of a subpoena on

20 Uber’s vendor, third party Twilio, Inc. Twilio, Inc. served its responses—largely objections—to that
21 subpoena on October 14, 2015;
22

WHEREAS, counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel for Defendant have been diligently working

23 to complete discovery in this matter and, thus far, have managed their discovery-related
24 disagreements without Court intervention;
25

WHEREAS, on September 28, 2015, and pursuant to the Parties’ agreement, Defendant

26 served: (1) amended responses to Plaintiffs’ first set of document requests, (2) responses to
27
28
–2–
STIPULATION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER

1 Plaintiffs’ second set of document requests, (3) responses to Plaintiffs’ second and third sets of
2 interrogatories, and (4) an additional document production;
3

WHEREAS, for the past month, counsel for the Parties have been meeting and conferring on

4 a very regular basis about a number of discovery issues, including the ongoing discovery of ESI, the
5 additional documents requested by Plaintiffs, and the timing of depositions;
6

WHEREAS, while Defendant has produced documents to date, and pursuant to the ongoing

7 meet and confer process, Defendant is continuing the process of searching for additional responsive
8 documents, including any additional electronic discovery;
9

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ position is that they cannot proceed to prepare and serve their expert

10 report(s) – which, according to the current Scheduling Order, are due November 13, 2015 – until
11 such time as they finish meeting and conferring about the production of documents, receive any
12 additional document production, review the documents, and take related deposition testimony;
13

WHEREAS, the Parties do not seek to unduly delay this case. Indeed, both Parties desire a

14 prompt resolution of this matter and have worked together to reach such a resolution;
15

WHEREAS, the Parties have also been discussing the parameters of pursuing Mediation and

16 are in the process of selecting a mediator. The additional time afforded by the proposed amended
17 schedule will also be used to facilitate the mediation;
18

WHEREAS, Defendant’s counsel has informed Plaintiffs’ counsel that it intends to file a

19 Motion to Stay this case pending appeal of the FCC’s Omnibus Order to the U.S. Court of Appeals
20 for the District of Columbia (Case No. 15-1211) and the Supreme Court decision in Spokeo v.
21 Robins, 135 S. Ct. 1892 (2015). To date, Defendant has filed such Motions to Stay in two other
22 pending TCPA cases, Vergara v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 15-6942 (Dkt. No. 12), pending
23 in the Northern District of Illinois and Kolloukian v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 15-2856
24 (Dkt. No. 41), pending in the Central District of California. Those motions are currently in the
25 process of being briefed;
26
27
28
–3–
STIPULATION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER

1

WHEREAS, the Parties agree that an extension of time for Plaintiffs to serve their expert

2 designation is reasonable under the above-described circumstances, and that commensurate
3 extensions should be made to the other deadlines.
4

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:

5

The Parties agree, subject to Court approval, to amend the deadlines as follows:

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Activity
Plaintiffs’ expert designation
Defendant’s expert
designation
Plaintiffs’ Motion for class
certification
Opposition to class
certification
Reply to class certification

Further case management
conference
Deadline to file dispositive
motions

Current Deadline
November 13, 2015

Requested Deadline
February 19, 2016

December 18, 2015

March 18, 2016

February 12, 2016

May 20, 2016

March 11, 2016

June 20, 2016

March 25, 2016
May 25, 2016
60 days after the order on class
certification

July 5, 2016
September 2016
(Date and Time TBD)
60 days after the order
on class certification

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Currently, May 25, 2016 is the next Case Management Conference. The Parties are
conscious the Court will want sufficient time to review and analyze the Parties’ class certification
briefing and evidence, and that the requested amendments to the briefing schedule may impact the
Court’s preparation for the hearing. As such, the Parties respectfully request that the Court advise
them of a new date and time for the hearing and further Case Management Conference.
Additionally, the parties recognize that these dates are subject to the decision on Defendant’s
yet-to-be-filed Motion to Stay and the outcome of the proposed mediation.
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6-2(a), attached as Exhibit A is a joint declaration in support of
this Stipulation.
DATED: October 30, 2015

TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI, LLP

25
26
27
28
–4–
STIPULATION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER

1

By

/s/ Hassan A. Zavareei
Hassan A. Zavareei

2

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

3
DATED: October 30, 2015

PERKINS COIE LLP

4
5

By

/s/ James Snell
James Snell

6

Attorneys for Defendant

7
8

16

ER

H

15

Dated: November 2, 2015

R NIA
FO

. Ti ga r

LI

RT

14

nS
J u d ge J o

A

13

UNIT
ED

12

VED
APPRO

RT
U
O

11

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

NO

10

S

9

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–5–
STIPULATION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER

C

1
2

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
DATED: ______________
4
5

__________________________________
The Honorable Jon S. Tigar
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–6–
STIPULATION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER

FILER’S ATTESTATION

1
2

Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X, Subparagraph B, the undersigned attests that

3 all parties have concurred in the filing of this Stipulation.
4
DATED: October 30, 2015

TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI, LLP

5
6

By

/s/ Hassan A. Zavareei
Hassan A. Zavareei

7
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–7–
FILER’S ATTESTATION