Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Background

Uber moved to compel Jane Doe to respond to a request for production of documents. Doe moved for sanctions based on Uber’s motion. Uber also filed an administrative motion to seal portions of its opposition to Doe’s sanctions motion.

Motion to Compel

The court denied Uber’s motion to compel. It found that Uber’s underlying document request was untimely because the court had extended the fact-discovery deadline only to allow completion of discovery that had already been served, while expressly prohibiting new discovery. Uber did not ask the court for permission to serve the new request, even though it had previously obtained permission for other post-deadline discovery.

The court also found that the motion to compel itself was procedurally improper. Uber filed it before Doe’s time to respond had expired. In addition, Uber had not met and conferred in good faith with Doe before filing the motion, as required by the federal discovery rules, the local rules, and the court’s standing order. “Meet and confer” means attempting to resolve a discovery dispute with the opposing party before asking the court to intervene.

Sanctions

The court held that sanctions were required because Uber’s motion was not substantially justified and no other circumstance made sanctions unfair. But the court found Doe’s requested $10,500 excessive. It awarded $5,000 in sanctions instead and ordered Uber to pay that amount to Doe’s counsel within 21 days after the order’s date. Thus, the court granted in part Doe’s motion for sanctions.

Sealing Request and Disposition

The court denied Uber’s administrative motion to seal portions of its opposition because no party had submitted a declaration establishing that the quoted deposition testimony was properly subject to sealing. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 165, 172, and 182. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley signed the order as a United States magistrate judge.