Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

O'Connor v. Uber Technologies Inc

United States District Court, Northern District of California

November 6, 2014

DOUGLAS O'CONNOR, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC, Defendant

For Douglas O'Connor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff: Ben Weber, Sara Smolik, Shannon Liss-Riordan, Lichten and Liss-Riordan, P.C., Boston, MA; Matthew David Carlson, Carlson Legal Services, San Francisco, CA.

For Thomas Colopy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff: Matthew David Carlson, Carlson Legal Services, San Francisco, CA; Sara Smolik, Shannon Liss-Riordan, Lichten and Liss-Riordan, P.C., Boston, MA.

For Matthew Manahan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff: Matthew David Carlson, Carlson Legal Services, San Francisco, CA; Shannon Liss-Riordan, Lichten and Liss-Riordan, P.C., Boston, MA.

For Wilson Rolle, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, William Anderson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs: Lichten and Liss-Riordan, P.C., Boston, MA.

For Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant: Robert Jon Hendricks, LEAD ATTORNEY, Caitlin Victoria May, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, San Francisco, CA; John C. Fish, Jr., Littler Mendelson, PC, San Francisco, CA; Stephen A. Swedlow, PRO HAC VICE, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Chicago, IL; Stephen Luther Taeusch, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, San Francisco, CA.

For Travis Kalanick, Ryan Graves, Defendants: Robert Jon Hendricks, LEAD ATTORNEY, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, San Francisco, CA; John C. Fish, Jr., Littler Mendelson, PC, San Francisco, CA; Stephen Luther Taeusch, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, San Francisco, CA.

For Caren Ehret, Movant: Myron Milton Cherry, LEAD ATTORNEY, Myron M. Cherry & Associates LLC, Chicago, IL.

ORDER ON JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER [DOCKET NO. 157]

DONNA M. RYU, United States Magistrate Judge.

On October 3, 2014, the parties filed a joint discovery letter brief in which both parties moved to compel further discovery responses. [Docket No. 157 (Jt. Letter).] The court conducted a hearing on the matter on October 30, 2014. With one exception noted below, this order summarizes the rulings issued during the hearing.

I. Background

Plaintiffs Douglas O'Connor, Thomas Colopy, David Khan, Matthew Manahan, Wilson Rolle, Jr., and William Anderson filed this putative class action against Uber Technologies, Inc. (" Uber") in August 2013. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of drivers who provide passenger car service in California for customers who hail rides using Uber's mobile phone application. Plaintiffs allege that Uber misclassifies drivers as independent contractors and forces drivers to bear the expenses of their employment, including vehicle expenses and gas. They also allege that Uber discourages passengers from tipping drivers by advertising that the fare includes a gratuity, but that Uber does not pay drivers the full amount of the gratuity built into the fare. The present case management schedule permits Uber to file an early summary judgment motion, prior to class certification, on the question of whether Uber drivers are independent contractors or employees. Such a motion must be filed by December 4, 2014, with Plaintiffs' opposition due by December 29, 2014.

In the present joint discovery letter, Plaintiffs seek to compel further responses to fifteen requests for production (RFPs), broken down into four categories of documents. Uber also seeks an order compelling Plaintiffs to provide further documents in response to its RFPs on the grounds that they have not produced all responsive documents in their " possession, custody, or control." [1]

II. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides that a party may obtain discovery " regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). " Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). " Relevancy, for the purposes of discovery, is defined broadly, although it is not without ultimate and necessary boundaries." Gonzales v. Google, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 674, 679-80 (N.D. Cal. 2006). " [T]he party opposing discovery has the burden of showing that discovery should not be allowed, and also has the burden of clarifying, explaining and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.