National Labor Relations Board v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Filing 34

ORDER continuing hearing on 1 MOTION For Order Requiring Obedience to Subpoena Ad Testificandum and Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by National Labor Relations Board. Motion Hearing set for 8/18/2016 11:00 AM in Courtroom 4, 3rd Floor, Oakland before Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 7/6/2016. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 7 Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO ENFORCE OBEDIENCE TO SUBPOENAS TO AUGUST 18, 2016 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 16-mc-80057-KAW On March 2, 2016, the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) applied for an order 12 13 enforcing two administrative subpoenas it issued in connection with its investigation of certain 14 charges of unfair labor practices against Respondent Uber Technologies, Inc. The application was 15 scheduled to be heard on July 7, 2016. On July 5, 2016, Uber filed a motion to stay the instant proceeding in light of the pending 16 17 motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement in O’Connor v. Uber Technologies, 18 Inc., Case No. 13-cv-03826-EMC, which, if approved, would provide for the withdrawal of the 19 two charges filed in this region. (Dkt. No. 31-1 at 2.) Therein, Respondent requested that the July 20 7, 2016 hearing be continued. (Dkt. No. 31-8.) While the Court understands that the Board has broad investigatory authority, the potential 21 22 mootness of the charges in this region would undoubtedly affect the scope of the subpoenas. The 23 Court does not believe that a short postponement will harm the public interest. (7/6/16 Letter, Dkt. 24 No. 33.)1 Accordingly, in the interest of judicial economy, the Court continues the hearing on the 25 application to August 18, 2016— the same date the motion to stay is scheduled to be heard. 26 27 28 1 The undersigned notes that more than four months elapsed between the first charge filed and the Board’s issuance of the subpoenas, which is far outside its own investigatory time target of six weeks. (See 7/6/16 Letter at 2.) 1 Additionally, the Court notes that it appears that the Board’s reliance on Fresh & Easy—so 2 far as it argues that Uber’s failure to file a petition to revoke operates as a bar to challenge the 3 scope of the investigative subpoenas—is misplaced, particularly in light of the permissive 4 language contained in the National Labor Relations Act and the Board’s role, here, as an 5 investigatory body rather than an arbiter. 29 U.S.C. § 161(1) (“Within five days after the service of 6 a subpena [sic] . . . , such person may petition the Board to revoke . . . .”)(emphasis added); 7 N.L.R.B. v. Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Mkt., Inc., 805 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th Cir. 2015) (“That 8 the federal courts may enforce a subpoena does not mean that this forum can be used to 9 circumvent the essential role of the Board in managing discovery in the cases before it.”) Thus, the undersigned encourages the parties to continue their meet and confer efforts regarding the 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 scope of the subpoenas to avoid unnecessary motion practice. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 6, 2016 __________________________________ KANDIS A. WESTMORE United States Magistrate Judge 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?