Aquino v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
- Katharine Parker
- 1:22-cv-04267
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Aquino v. Uber, Judge Parker denied requests to stay or bifurcate discovery and ordered discovery to proceed in phases.
The order affects the plaintiff, the defendants, and the proposed class or collective members by requiring discovery to proceed on the schedule and in the phases set by the court.
What happened
Aquino v. Uber Technologies, Inc. involved a case brought by Anthony Aquino individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against Uber Technologies, Inc. and other defendants. The defendants had asked the court to pause discovery while their motion to dismiss was pending and to divide discovery into separate stages.
Judge Parker denied both requests. She found that the initial discovery would not impose too much burden on the defendants and that delaying discovery would prejudice the plaintiff. She also found that dividing discovery as the defendants proposed would not be the most efficient approach.
Instead, the court ordered phased discovery. The first phase would last 60 days and focus on Aquino’s individual claims, while allowing discovery of policy and procedure documents that also applied to proposed class or collective members. The court set additional case-management and discovery deadlines.
The detailed version
- Aquino v. Uber Technologies, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-04267
- Katharine Parker
- Feb. 8, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs sued Uber Technologies, Inc. and other defendants. The opinion does not decide the pending motion to dismiss or the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. The order addresses two defense requests about discovery: a request to pause discovery while the motion to dismiss was pending and a request to divide discovery into separate categories or stages.
Discovery stay
The court denied the defendants’ letter motion to stay discovery. In deciding whether to pause discovery, the court considered whether the defendants had made a strong showing that the plaintiff’s claim was unmeritorious, the scope and burden of discovery, and the risk of unfair prejudice to the party opposing the stay.
The court stated that the initial discovery would not overburden the defendants and that delaying discovery would prejudice the plaintiff. Without evaluating the merits of the motion to dismiss, the court also found that the defendants had not made the required strong showing at that point.
Bifurcation and phased discovery
The court also denied the defendants’ letter motion to bifurcate discovery, meaning to divide discovery in the manner the defendants proposed. The court found that this approach would not be the most efficient way to proceed. Instead, the court ordered phased discovery.
Phase one discovery, to take place over the next 60 days, would focus on the plaintiff’s individual claims. The court further stated that the fact that a policy or procedure document applied to the plaintiff and to other proposed class or collective members did not prevent the document from being discovered during phase one. Those policy and procedure documents were to be exchanged during the initial phase.
Deadlines and disposition
The court set February 7, 2024, as the deadline for all fact discovery, including individual and class or collective discovery. Initial disclosures were due February 14, 2023, and interrogatories were due March 9, 2023. The deadlines to amend the complaint and join parties were both April 3, 2023, with later amendments or joinder allowed only for good cause. The court also scheduled a case-management conference for April 3, 2023.
Judge Katharine H. Parker denied the motion to stay discovery and denied the motion to bifurcate discovery. The clerk was requested to close the motion listed as ECF No. 57.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.