Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 1132


Download PDF
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

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?