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)
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?