Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01257/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01257-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

L.A. TAXI COOPERATIVE, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01257-JST (DMR)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY LETTER

Re: Dkt. No. 90

The court has reviewed the parties’ June 7, 2016 joint discovery letter. Discovery Letter 

[Docket No. 90]. This matter is appropriate for determination without oral argument. Civil L.R. 

7-1(b).

Defendants seek to compel Plaintiffs to provide further responses to Request for 

Production (“RFP”) Nos. 1-4 and 7-8, which relate to Plaintiffs’ safety practices. Defendants state 

that some Plaintiffs have produced responsive documents, but many did not. Defendants seek (1) 

production of all responsive documents by a date certain; and (2) written confirmation that if a 

particular Plaintiff has not produced responsive documents, then that Plaintiff has no responsive 

documents on that topic. Discovery Letter at 1.

Plaintiffs state that they have produced all documents that they have identified as 

responsive to RFP Nos. 1-4 and 7-8, and that their investigation to identify additional responsive 

documents is ongoing. Id. at 2-3. Plaintiffs anticipate that all responsive documents will be 

produced by July 29, 2016. Discovery Letter at 3. 

To the extent Defendants seek relief in the form of a date certain for completion of 

Plaintiffs’ production, Defendants’ motion is denied as moot. At the June 9, 2016 discovery 

hearing (which took place after the parties filed the instant joint letter brief), the court ordered the 

parties to meet and confer to agree on dates for both parties to complete their production of 

Case 3:15-cv-01257-JST Document 93 Filed 06/17/16 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

documents. Minute Order [Docket No. 91]. 

With respect to Defendants’ second request, by parties’ agreed-upon date for the 

completion of production of documents responsive to RFP Nos. 1-4 and 7-8, each Plaintiff shall 

confirm in writing that it has produced all documents responsive to the request, or specify any 

documents withheld on the basis of an objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C). Plaintiffs shall 

further confirm that if a Plaintiff has not produced any documents as responsive to a particular 

request, that Plaintiff does not have responsive documents in its possession, custody or control. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 17, 2016

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01257-JST Document 93 Filed 06/17/16 Page 2 of 2