United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;

OTTOMOTTO LLC; and OTTO

TRUCKING LLC,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00939 WHA

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS

FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGE

CORLEY’S NONDISPOSITIVE

PRETRIAL ORDER RE LYFTRELATED DOCUMENTS

INTRODUCTION

The magistrate judge overseeing discovery in this action granted in part and denied in

part defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff to produce documents relating to its collaboration

deal with a non-party. Both plaintiff and the non-party move for relief from that order pursuant

to Civil Local Rule 72. The motions are DENIED. 

STATEMENT

Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., and Ottomotto LLC (collectively, “Uber”) served

subpoenas for a deposition and document production on non-party Lyft, Inc., after Lyft reached

a collaboration deal with plaintiff Waymo LLC. Lyft moved to quash the subpoenas (Dkt. No.

646) while Uber moved to compel Waymo to respond to interrogatories and produce documents

relating to the deal (Dkt. No. 687). On July 7, per the discovery referral in this action,

Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Corley granted Lyft’s motion to quash and granted in part and

denied in part Uber’s motion to compel (Dkt. No. 832). Waymo and Lyft move for relief from

that order pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72 (Dkt. Nos. 876–77). This order follows full briefing.

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1132 Filed 08/08/17 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

ANALYSIS

1. STANDARD OF REVIEW.

Under FRCP 72, a district judge considering timely objections to a magistrate judge’s

nondispositive order must defer to the order unless it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 

Grimes v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991). “The reviewing

court may not simply substitute its judgment for that of the deciding court.” Ibid. (citing United

States v. BNS Inc., 858 F.2d 456, 464 (9th Cir. 1988)). 

2. WAYMO’S MOTION FOR RELIEF.

Waymo objects that Judge Corley took “inconsistent positions with respect to Waymo

and Lyft’s production of documents” because she granted Lyft’s motion to quash based in part

on “confidentiality concerns” but ordered Waymo to “produce the very documents that Lyft

argued should not be produced” (see Dkt. Nos. 876 at 1–2, 952 at 1). Not so. Judge Corley

found that Waymo, a party to this action, may have to produce certain “commercially sensitive”

documents, but that a different legal standard applied “[t]o the extent Defendants seek

additional documents from Lyft,” a non-party. Under that standard, Judge Corley then found

that “[d]efendants [did] not adequately explain how they have a substantial need for the

requested information (that is not otherwise being produced by Plaintiff) that outweighs the

confidential and commercial nature of the information” (Dkt. No. 832 at 3–6 (emphasis added)). 

These findings were neither inconsistent nor clearly erroneous.

Waymo also objects that it “already agreed to produce documents directed at the issues

Uber claims the Lyft documents are relevant to,” so “Uber does not need the additional Lyft

documents” (see Dkt. Nos. 876 at 2–3, 952 at 2–3). But Waymo does not get to decide which

responsive documents Uber is entitled to discover, and its disagreement with Judge Corley on

this point is not reason to disturb her decision.

3. LYFT’S MOTION FOR RELIEF.

Uber argued before Judge Corley that the requested documents were “fundamental to

[its] defenses” and “[necessary] to proceed with depositions” (Dkt. No. 687 at 1). Judge Corley

granted Uber’s motion to compel in part after finding that the requested documents related to

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1132 Filed 08/08/17 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

Waymo’s claims for damages and injunctive relief, noting that Uber was entitled to develop its

defense against said claims, rejecting Waymo’s arguments to the contrary, and requiring that the

documents “be produced on an outside attorneys’ eyes only basis” (Dkt. No. 832 at 3). Yet,

Lyft — which never submitted a brief in opposition to Uber’s motion — now objects to Judge

Corley’s ruling against Waymo on the basis that her order did not explicitly state whether the

documents in question were both relevant and necessary to Uber’s case, “unreasonably

cumulative or duplicative,” or available through less intrusive means (Dkt. No. 877 at 2–5). 

By finding that Uber was entitled to the requested documents to develop its defense

against Waymo’s claims for damages and injunctive relief, Judge Corley indicated the necessity

of said documents to Uber’s case. By rejecting Waymo’s argument that Uber does not “need”

the requested documents because Waymo’s production of other documents on the same issues

rendered the Lyft deal “irrelevant” (see Dkt. Nos. 746 at 5, 832 at 3), Judge Corley indicated

that the requested documents were not “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative.” And by

requiring that the requested documents “be produced on an outside attorneys’ eyes only basis,”

Judge Corley indicated that, in her judgment and after balancing the parties’ competing

interests, no “less intrusive means” were available. Aside from essentially complaining that

Judge Corley did not offer more targeted responses to arguments it never raised before her, Lyft

has not shown any reason to disturb her judgment on these discovery disputes.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, both motions for relief from Judge Corley’s July 7 order are

DENIED. All stated objections thereto are OVERRULED. Waymo shall fully comply with the

order by AUGUST 11 AT NOON.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 8, 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1132 Filed 08/08/17 Page 3 of 3