Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 2499

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGE CORLEY'S NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER by Judge William Alsup [denying #2474 Motion]. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/19/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
WAYMO LLC,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;
OTTOMOTTO LLC; and OTTO
TRUCKING LLC,

ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGE
CORLEY’S NONDISPOSITIVE
PRETRIAL ORDER

Defendants.
/

16
17
18

No. C 17-00939 WHA

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

19

part plaintiff’s request for in camera review of a subset of documents or redactions withheld on

20

privilege grounds. Plaintiff moves for relief from that order pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72.

21

The motion is DENIED.

22
23

STATEMENT
On December 29, plaintiff Waymo LLC filed a discovery letter brief seeking to compel

24

defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., and Ottomotto LLC (collectively, “Uber”) to turn over

25

certain categories of documents to the special master for in camera review (Dkt. No. 2441-3).

26

Pursuant to the discovery referral in this action, Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Corley issued

27

an order on January 4 allowing Waymo to select fifty pages for her to review in camera but

28

denying Waymo’s request for random in camera review as disproportional to the needs of the

1

case (Dkt. No. 2454). Following a dispute between the parties concerning which fifty pages

2

Waymo could select for in camera review, Judge Corley issued a second order on January 8 to

3

clarify that Waymo had to select its fifty pages from the documents logged or produced during

4

supplemental discovery stemming from the Jacobs materials (Dkt. No. 2458). Waymo moves

5

for relief from both orders pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72 (Dkt. No. 2473-4). No further

6

briefing is needed to decide this motion.

7

ANALYSIS

8

1.

9

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

STANDARD OF REVIEW.

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

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

12

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

13

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

14
15
16

2.

WAYMO’S MOTION FOR RELIEF.
A.

January 4 Order.

Waymo requested in camera review for a “set of less than 300” redacted documents

17

and now protests Judge Corley’s decision to limit her review to fifty pages, complaining that it

18

had legitimate concerns regarding the possibility of improper redactions. Judge Corley did not

19

ignore Waymo’s concerns. Indeed, she granted Waymo’s request in part because of those

20

concerns (Dkt. No. 2454 at 2). Waymo’s objection essentially amounts to disagreement

21

with Judge Corley’s judgment of how much in camera review was appropriate under the

22

circumstances. This falls short of showing clear error as required by FRCP 72.

23

Waymo further objects to Judge Corley’s decision to deny its additional requests for

24

random in camera review of documents withheld as privileged. Judge Corley denied those

25

requests as disproportional to the needs of the case. Waymo contends proportionality was not

26

a concern because ordering Uber to turn over documents to the special master would not have

27

imposed a significant burden on Uber. Incredibly, Waymo seems to assume that the burden on

28

Uber was the only factor in determining proportionality. Waymo ignores, for example, the
2

1

burdens its request would have imposed on the special master and the Court. Additionally, as

2

Judge Corley noted, Waymo did not identify any relevant information that it expected random

3

in camera review to reveal. Judge Corley remains well-situated to determine how much

4

in camera review is appropriate. Under these circumstances, her decision to deny what

5

appeared to be an unwarranted fishing expedition was not clearly erroneous.

6
7

B.

January 8 Order.

Finally, Waymo objects to Judge Corley’s supplemental order requiring it to select its

8

fifty pages from documents produced during supplemental discovery stemming from the Jacobs

9

materials. Waymo argues that this limitation was clearly erroneous because its concerns over
improperly-redacted documents extend to documents produced over the entire course of

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

discovery (Dkt No. 2473-4). This argument ignores the glaring fact that Waymo has repeatedly

12

and vocally expressed those concerns over the course of this litigation. There has been no

13

shortage of contentious discovery disputes over documents withheld or redacted prior to this

14

stage. Waymo’s submissions to Judge Corley made no showing that yet another round of

15

scrutiny over previously withheld or redacted documents was necessary. Under these

16

circumstances, Judge Corley’s decision to limit her in camera review to documents produced

17

during supplemental discovery stemming from the Jacobs materials was not clearly erroneous.

18
19
20

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Waymo’s motion for relief from Judge Corley’s January 4
and January 8 orders is DENIED. All stated objections to said orders are OVERRULED.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24
25

Dated: January 19, 2018.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
3