Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 130

ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO #95 SHORTEN TIME AND #114 FILE UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Alsup on 3/30/2017. Motion Hearing set for 4/27/2017 08:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/30/2017)

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 No. C 17-00939 WHA Plaintiff, v. ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SHORTEN TIME AND FILE UNDER SEAL UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants. / The hearing on defendants’ motion to compel arbitration (Dkt. No. 115) is rescheduled 16 from May 4 to APRIL 27 AT 8:00 A.M. The opposition brief remains due by April 10 and any 17 reply brief remains due by April 17. To accelerate the hearing date any more would be unfair, 18 given that defendants have known about this controversy for months and could have brought 19 their motion to compel arbitration earlier. Instead, defendants waited until after the other side 20 had made its motion for provisional relief. To give even more priority to the motion to compel 21 arbitration would place undue pressure on the schedule for the motion for provisional relief, 22 including the expedited discovery. The Court may or may not be able to rule on the motion to 23 compel arbitration prior to the hearing on May 3 (not May 4) concerning the motion for 24 provisional relief, which May 3 hearing date remains firm. 25 Counsel shall please keep in mind that the manner in which the motions have been 26 presented, including excessive redaction demands associated therewith, may inform the Court 27 as to the advisability of staying this case pending arbitration, a forum where everything is 28 redacted from public view. Other factors that would be of interest include how far along the 1 arbitration in question has advanced; who the arbitrators are; their relevant expertise; the extent 2 to which depositions and document discovery will be available on an expedited basis; and when 3 the arbitration will be concluded by comparison to proceedings in this case, a question that 4 bears on the equitable factor of whether this case should be stayed in favor of arbitration. 5 6 Except as stated above, defendants’ administrative motion to shorten time (Dkt. No. 95) is DENIED. which portions of the motion to compel arbitration (and its attachments) truly deserve to be 9 filed under seal. Defendants shall please revise the proposed order on their administrative 10 motion to file under seal (Dkt. No. 114) accordingly and file the revised proposed order by 11 For the Northern District of California During the conference yesterday, counsel for both sides reached an agreement as to 8 United States District Court 7 APRIL 3 AT NOON. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: March 30, 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?