Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 4, 2022
• Docket: 3:19-cv-03310
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JANE DOE, Case No. 19-cv-03310-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: UBER’S MOTION FOR 9 v. ISSUANCE OF LETTERS ROGATORY

10 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 148 Defendants. 11

12 13 Uber’s motion for issuance of letters rogatory to the Central Authority of Mexico for 14 International Judicial Assistance to obtain the deposition of Plaintiff’s fiancé, Cuauthli Padilla 15 Arias, a citizen of Mexico, is now pending before the Court. (Dkt. No. 148.) After carefully 16 considering the parties’ briefs and the relevant legal authority, the Court concludes that oral 17 argument is unnecessary, see Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), VACATES the January 27, 2022 hearing, and 18 GRANTS Uber’s motion. 19 DISCUSSION 20 A letter rogatory is a formal request “from a court in which an action is pending[ ] to a 21 foreign court to perform some judicial act.” 22 C.F.R. § 92.54; see also Intel Corp. v. Advanced 22 Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 247 n.1 (2004) (defining “letter rogatory” as “the request by a 23 domestic court to a foreign court to take evidence from a certain witness”). The Federal Rules of 24 Civil Procedure provide for the taking of depositions within foreign countries through letters 25 rogatory. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(b)(1)(B) (“A deposition may be taken in a foreign country ... 26 under a letter of request, whether or not captioned a ‘letter rogatory[.]’”). In accordance with Rule 27 28(b)(1)(B), “[t]he Department of State has power, directly, or through suitable channels ... to 1 the foreign or international tribunal, officer, or agency to whom it is addressed, and to receive and 2 return it after execution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1781(a)(2). 3 Courts have “inherent power to issue Letters Rogatory,” United States v. Staples, 256 F.2d 4 290, 292 (9th Cir. 1958), and “[w]hether to issue such a letter is a matter of discretion,” Barnes & 5 Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp., No. C 11-02709 EMC LB, 2012 WL 1808849, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 17, 6 2012). “When determining whether to exercise its discretion, a court will generally not weigh the 7 evidence sought from the discovery request nor will it attempt to predict whether that information 8 will actually be obtained.” Asis Internet Servs. v. Optin Global, Inc., No. C-05-05124 JCS, 2007 9 WL 1880369, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2007). A court must instead apply “Rule 28(b) in light of 10 the scope of discovery provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Id. (collecting cases). 11 Under Rule 26(b), “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding a nonprivileged matter that is 12 relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 13 Uber insists that the testimony it seeks through the letters rogatory comports with Rule 26 14 as it seeks testimony from Plaintiff’s fiancé regarding Plaintiff’s factual allegations and the 15 damages sought. In particular, Uber seeks testimony regarding:

16 (1) what information he provided to Plaintiff to locate and identify the correct vehicle that he was paired with through the Uber App; (2) 17 Plaintiff’s fiancé’s history of ordering Ubers on Plaintiff’s behalf prior to the alleged incident on August 14, 2018; (3) Plaintiff’s history 18 of using Uber prior to the alleged incident on August 14, 2018; (4) Plaintiff’s habits, activities, mood, phobias, appetite, energy level, 19 relationships, and sleep patterns since the August 14, 2018 incident; (5) any marketing, advertising, social media or news information that 20 either Plaintiff or her fiancé reviewed regarding how to use the Uber App, system, and related safety features prior to the August 14, 2018 21 incident; and (6) any information that Plaintiff confided to him relating to the incident, including her failure to identify the correct 22 vehicle, following the incident. 23 (Dkt. No. 148 at 7-8.) Plaintiff does not dispute that Mr. Padilla’s testimony is relevant or 24 otherwise object to the scope of testimony sought. (Dkt. No. 150.) Rather, Plaintiff argues that 25 Uber’s request is too late because Uber cannot obtain Mr. Padilla’s deposition before the January 26 21, 2022 fact discovery cut-off.1 27 1 Civil Local Rule 37-3 states that “‘discovery cut-off is the date by which all responses to 2 || written discovery are due and by which all depositions must be concluded.” However, the rule 3 also provides that depositions may occur “after the applicable discovery cut-off...by order of the 4 || Court for good cause shown.” The Court finds that the unique circumstances here constitute good 5 cause for Uber to obtain Mr. Padilla’s deposition after the fact discovery cut-off. 6 First, obtaining deposition testimony via letter rogatory is a time-consuming process which 7 requires cooperation from domestic and foreign governmental entities over which the party 8 seeking discovery has no control. See Société Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 9 |} 482 U.S. 522, 542 (1987) (describing the letter rogatory process as “unduly time consuming and 10 || expensive.”). Second, Plaintiff has been aware of Uber’s desire to take Mr. Padilla’s deposition 11 for months and Uber has repeatedly sought her cooperation in securing Mr. Padilla’s testimony, 12 seemingly to no avail. (Dkt. No. 148-1 at {| 2-8.) Third, while Plaintiff has indicated that she 13 “likely will” call Mr. Padilla as a witness at trial, she has refused Uber’s efforts to cooperatively 14 schedule the deposition in advance of trial. (/d. at 9; see also Dkt. No. 145 at 8.) Finally, 3 15 || because Plaintiff's counsel has indicated that it does not currently represent Mr. Padilla and lacks a 16 authority to accept a subpoena on his behalf, the only legal means for Uber to seek his deposition 3 17 is through the letter rogatory process. 18 As there is no dispute that Mr. Padilla’s testimony is relevant, the Court GRANTS Uber’s 19 motion for issuance of letters rogatory, and finds that there is good cause for Uber to take Mr. 20 || Padilla’s deposition after the discovery cut-off. 21 This Order disposes of Docket No. 148. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: January 4, 2022 ol) 24 mM JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLE 25 United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28