Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 872

ORDER RE #866 NON-PARTY LYFT'S "OBJECTION AND REQUEST FOR A STAY OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S JULY 7, 2017 DISCOVERY ORDER." Signed by Judge Alsup on 7/11/2017. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/11/2017)

Download PDF
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 872 Filed 07/11/17 Page 1 of 2 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 RE NON-PARTY LYFT’S “OBJECTION AND REQUEST FOR A STAY OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S JULY 7, 2017 DISCOVERY ORDER” UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; OTTOMOTTO LLC; and OTTO TRUCKING LLC, Defendants. / On July 7, Judge Jacqueline Corley issued an order that, among other things, granted in 17 part defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff Waymo LLC to produce documents relating to its 18 collaboration agreement with non-party Lyft, Inc. (Dkt. No. 832). Lyft has filed a nine-page- 19 long “Objection and Request for a Stay of Magistrate Judge’s July 7, 2017 Discovery Order” 20 with no proposed order appended, purportedly pursuant to Section 636(b)(1)(A) of Title 28 of 21 the United States Code, FRCP 72(a), and Civil Local Rule 72-2 (see Dkt. No. 866 at 4). 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Civil Local Rule 72-2 provides in part (emphasis added): Any objection filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) must be made as a “Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge.” The motion must specifically identify the portion of the Magistrate Judge’s order to which objection is made and the reasons and authority therefor. The motion may not exceed 5 pages (not counting declarations and exhibits), and must set forth specifically the portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings, recommendation or report to which an objection is made, the action requested and the reasons supporting the motion and must be accompanied by a proposed order. Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 872 Filed 07/11/17 Page 2 of 2 1 Lyft’s submission (Dkt. No. 866) fails to comply with the rule in multiple respects and 2 will not be considered. The July 13 deadline for Waymo to comply with Judge Corley’s July 7 3 order (see Dkt. No. 832 at 6) remains in effect. The deadline for Lyft (or anyone else) to file a 4 motion for relief from that order in full compliance with Civil Local Rule 72-2 is continued 5 from July 11 to JULY 12 AT NOON. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: July 11, 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 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?