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)

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