Manning v. Uber Technologies Inc.

Filing 97

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING 93 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION.(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

IN RE UBER TEXT MESSAGING

8

Case No. 18-cv-02931-HSG
ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION

9
10

Re: Dkt. No. 93

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

On March 7, Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) moved for leave to file a

13

supplemental declaration in response to Plaintiffs’ Sur-Reply, citing Local Rule 7-11. See Dkt.

14

No. 93. Uber sought leave “in order to provide a more accurate and complete record” because it

15

believed that the deposition excerpts contained in Plaintiffs’ Sur-Reply “omitted the most relevant

16

portions.” Id. at 1.

17

Plaintiffs opposed on March 11. See Dkt. No. 95. As Plaintiffs point out, id. at 3, Uber is

18

once again attempting to introduce new evidence and argument on a fully-briefed motion. The

19

Court previously granted Plaintiffs leave to file a sur-reply because they otherwise would not be

20

able to reply to the new records Uber “inexplicably produced” with its reply brief in support of its

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

employee’s declaration. See Dkt. No. 86 at 2.
Uber cannot continually dribble out new evidence, spring it on Plaintiffs without an
opportunity for them to respond, and expect the Court to consider it. Uber bears the burden of
proving the existence of the arbitration agreement. See Norcia v. Samsung Telecommunications
Am., LLC, 845 F.3d 1279, 1283 (9th Cir. 2017). Thus, it should have presented all of the evidence
it believed supported its position in its original motion to compel, rather than repeatedly and
belatedly attempting to introduce new information piecemeal. Had Uber been more forthright in
the first place, neither this motion nor Plaintiffs’ sur-reply would have been necessary, and the

1

motion to compel already would have been submitted to the Court. It is inappropriate for Uber to

2

proceed in this manner, and its motion for leave to file a supplemental declaration is DENIED.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 3/14/2019
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2