Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 1132

ORDER DENYING #876 #877 MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM #832 JUDGE CORLEY'S NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER RE LYFT-RELATED DOCUMENTS by Judge Alsup. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2017)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9

WAYMO LLC,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16

No. C 17-00939 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS
FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGE
CORLEY’S NONDISPOSITIVE
PRETRIAL ORDER RE LYFTRELATED DOCUMENTS

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;
OTTOMOTTO LLC; and OTTO
TRUCKING LLC,
Defendants.
/
INTRODUCTION

17

The magistrate judge overseeing discovery in this action granted in part and denied in

18

part defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff to produce documents relating to its collaboration

19

deal with a non-party. Both plaintiff and the non-party move for relief from that order pursuant

20

to Civil Local Rule 72. The motions are DENIED.

21
22

STATEMENT
Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., and Ottomotto LLC (collectively, “Uber”) served

23

subpoenas for a deposition and document production on non-party Lyft, Inc., after Lyft reached

24

a collaboration deal with plaintiff Waymo LLC. Lyft moved to quash the subpoenas (Dkt. No.

25

646) while Uber moved to compel Waymo to respond to interrogatories and produce documents

26

relating to the deal (Dkt. No. 687). On July 7, per the discovery referral in this action,

27

Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Corley granted Lyft’s motion to quash and granted in part and

28

denied in part Uber’s motion to compel (Dkt. No. 832). Waymo and Lyft move for relief from
that order pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72 (Dkt. Nos. 876–77). This order follows full briefing.

1

ANALYSIS

2

1.

STANDARD OF REVIEW.

3

Under FRCP 72, a district judge considering timely objections to a magistrate judge’s

4

nondispositive order must defer to the order unless it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”

5

Grimes v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991). “The reviewing

6

court may not simply substitute its judgment for that of the deciding court.” Ibid. (citing United

7

States v. BNS Inc., 858 F.2d 456, 464 (9th Cir. 1988)).

8

2.

9

Waymo objects that Judge Corley took “inconsistent positions with respect to Waymo

WAYMO’S MOTION FOR RELIEF.

and Lyft’s production of documents” because she granted Lyft’s motion to quash based in part

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

on “confidentiality concerns” but ordered Waymo to “produce the very documents that Lyft

12

argued should not be produced” (see Dkt. Nos. 876 at 1–2, 952 at 1). Not so. Judge Corley

13

found that Waymo, a party to this action, may have to produce certain “commercially sensitive”

14

documents, but that a different legal standard applied “[t]o the extent Defendants seek

15

additional documents from Lyft,” a non-party. Under that standard, Judge Corley then found

16

that “[d]efendants [did] not adequately explain how they have a substantial need for the

17

requested information (that is not otherwise being produced by Plaintiff) that outweighs the

18

confidential and commercial nature of the information” (Dkt. No. 832 at 3–6 (emphasis added)).

19

These findings were neither inconsistent nor clearly erroneous.

20

Waymo also objects that it “already agreed to produce documents directed at the issues

21

Uber claims the Lyft documents are relevant to,” so “Uber does not need the additional Lyft

22

documents” (see Dkt. Nos. 876 at 2–3, 952 at 2–3). But Waymo does not get to decide which

23

responsive documents Uber is entitled to discover, and its disagreement with Judge Corley on

24

this point is not reason to disturb her decision.

25

3.

LYFT’S MOTION FOR RELIEF.

26

Uber argued before Judge Corley that the requested documents were “fundamental to

27

[its] defenses” and “[necessary] to proceed with depositions” (Dkt. No. 687 at 1). Judge Corley

28

granted Uber’s motion to compel in part after finding that the requested documents related to
2

1

Waymo’s claims for damages and injunctive relief, noting that Uber was entitled to develop its

2

defense against said claims, rejecting Waymo’s arguments to the contrary, and requiring that the

3

documents “be produced on an outside attorneys’ eyes only basis” (Dkt. No. 832 at 3). Yet,

4

Lyft — which never submitted a brief in opposition to Uber’s motion — now objects to Judge

5

Corley’s ruling against Waymo on the basis that her order did not explicitly state whether the

6

documents in question were both relevant and necessary to Uber’s case, “unreasonably

7

cumulative or duplicative,” or available through less intrusive means (Dkt. No. 877 at 2–5).

8

By finding that Uber was entitled to the requested documents to develop its defense

9

against Waymo’s claims for damages and injunctive relief, Judge Corley indicated the necessity
of said documents to Uber’s case. By rejecting Waymo’s argument that Uber does not “need”

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

the requested documents because Waymo’s production of other documents on the same issues

12

rendered the Lyft deal “irrelevant” (see Dkt. Nos. 746 at 5, 832 at 3), Judge Corley indicated

13

that the requested documents were not “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative.” And by

14

requiring that the requested documents “be produced on an outside attorneys’ eyes only basis,”

15

Judge Corley indicated that, in her judgment and after balancing the parties’ competing

16

interests, no “less intrusive means” were available. Aside from essentially complaining that

17

Judge Corley did not offer more targeted responses to arguments it never raised before her, Lyft

18

has not shown any reason to disturb her judgment on these discovery disputes.

19
20

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, both motions for relief from Judge Corley’s July 7 order are

21

DENIED. All stated objections thereto are OVERRULED. Waymo shall fully comply with the

22

order by AUGUST 11 AT NOON.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

Dated: August 8, 2017.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
3