1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 Marina Padilla, et al., No. CV-23-02380-PHX-JAT
10 Plaintiffs, ORDER
11 v.
12 Veyo LLC, et al.,
13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ third motion to extend deadlines (Doc. 50), 16 which Defendants oppose (Doc. 53).1 As discussed in this Court’s order of April 12, 2024, 17 and continuing through today, Plaintiffs seek the identity of a Veyo-dispatched driver that 18 they allege picked up a vulnerable adult.2 (Id.) Defendants claim Plaintiffs have had a 19 sufficient opportunity to conduct discovery, that such discovery has not produced the name 20 of a driver, and that Plaintiffs should be forced to give up the search because at this point 21 it is a “fishing expedition.” (Doc. 53 at 9). Plaintiffs assert the discovery they have 22 conducted thus far has produced questions that they seek to resolve. 23 For example, on May 20, 2024, this Court ordered Defendants to produce: (1) the
24 1 Plaintiffs did not file a reply. While no reply is required under the rules, in their response Defendants make some pointed allegations about Plaintiffs’ alleged misrepresentations 25 about the state of discovery in this case. The Court will proceed to rule on this motion, but may inquire about when Plaintiffs received certain discovery at a later point. 26 2 In short summary, Plaintiffs allege that a Veyo driver failed to transport a vulnerable adult 27 to the correct location. (Doc. 13 at 2). Defendants claim the vulnerable adult was never picked up by a Veyo driver, and as a result, claim that Defendants should not be parties to 28 this case. (Doc. 13 at 3). 1 GPS data for Mr. Suleymanyan from 1:00 p.m. MST, December 15, 2022 to 4:00 p.m. 2 MST, December 15, 2022 and (2) the GPS data for all Veyo drivers from 1:00 p.m. MST, 3 December 15, 2022 to 4:00 p.m. MST, December 15, 2022 within three miles of the 4 vulnerable adult’s pick-up address. (Doc. 45). In the pending motion, Plaintiffs claim 5 Defendants have not produced: (1) GPS information for drivers who were logged onto the 6 Veyo App but did not accept a ride; (2) GPS data for drivers who accepted a ride but then 7 cancelled the ride before picking up a rider; (3) GPS information for the Lyft drivers;3 and 8 (4) GPS information before a ride was accepted by a driver. 9 Defendants advised Plaintiffs that they do not have the GPS location of drivers who 10 are logged into their app (for the purpose of accepting rides) before a ride is accepted (items 11 1 and 4 above). (Doc. 50 at 3). Plaintiffs are skeptical of this representation because it 12 would make it impossible for Defendants to dispatch the closest (or a close) driver without 13 knowing the location of the driver before the ride is accepted. (Id.). To this end, Plaintiffs 14 seek to take a 30(b)(6) deposition of a Veyo representative to understand the Veyo 15 platform, which the Court has permitted. (Doc. 58). 16 As to item 2, the GPS data for drivers who accepted, but then cancelled, a ride, 17 Defendants advise that they have already given this information to Plaintiffs. (Doc. 53 at 18 8). The Court is unsure how the parties can disagree regarding whether Plaintiffs have this 19 information. See footnote 1 supra. However, as discussed below, Defendants will be 20 required to produce this information if they have not already done so. 21 As to item 3, the GPS data for the Veyo-dispatched Lyft drivers, Plaintiffs argue 22 that Defendants claim that they only have the pickup and drop off locations of rides 23 outsourced to Lyft, and that they do not have GPS data for the vehicles/drivers. (Doc. 50 24 at 2). As a result, Plaintiffs seek to subpoena this information from Lyft. (Id.). Plaintiffs 25 do not mention whether this subpoena has been sent.4 Conversely, Defendants claim that 26 3 It is undisputed that when no Veyo drivers are available, Veyo uses Lyft drivers. 27 4 Plaintiffs’ requested extension of the amendment deadline is July 3, 2024; thus, the 28 subpoena would need to have already gone out to be due back before this deadline. 1 they have already disclosed the GPS data for the Lyft rides to Plaintiffs. (Doc. 53 at 8 2 (“Defendants provided a list of trips…that were provided through Veyo by Lyft. 3 Defendants provided GPS data for each of those trips.”) (emphasis added). Like item 2, 4 the Court is unsure how the parties can disagree regarding whether Plaintiffs have this 5 information. See footnote 1 supra. However, as discussed below, Defendants will be 6 required to produce this information if they have not already done so. To be clear, 7 Defendants must produce all Lyft information in their possession, custody or control. See 8 footnote 6 infra. This includes GPS locations of drivers logged into the Lyft app prior to 9 those drivers accepting rides (within the time and geographic limits set below). 10 From the Court’s perspective, the May 20, 2024 Order already required disclosure 11 of everything within items 1-4 herein that is in Defendants’ possession, custody and 12 control. For clarity, the Court will re-order the production of this information. Defendants 13 need not re-produce any information previously produced. This Order merely requires 14 Defendants to produce any responsive information to items 1-4 that was withheld on 15 relevance (or other) grounds.5 However, to the extent Defendants respond that such 16 information does not exist in their possession, custody or control the Court cannot order it 17 produced. If that response turns out to be false, Plaintiffs may move for sanctions. Any 18 such motion is due within 14 days of discovery of the undisclosed responsive information 19 in Defendants’ possession, custody or control. 20 Based on the representations made by Plaintiffs in their motion, which the Court 21 finds to be good cause, the Court will grant one last extension of the deadline to amend the 22 complaint–to July 15, 2024. The Rule 16 scheduling conference in this case was held on 23 January 18, 2024; with the Rule 26(f) conference having occurred on December 19, 2023. 24 (Doc. 13 at 2). By mid-July 2024, Plaintiffs will have had almost seven months since the 25 Rule 26(f) conference to learn the identity of the driver/vehicle alleged to have picked up 26 5 The Court’s concern lies in the fact that Defendants state, “Defendants have no additional 27 relevant GPS information to provide.” (Doc. 53 at 7) (emphasis added). As noted in the Court’s June 7, 2024 Order, to date Defendants have been defining relevance far too 28 narrowly; thus, this Order will clarify that a relevance objection to items 1-4 herein is not well taken. (See Doc. 58 (discussing relevance)). 1 the vulnerable adult. If Plaintiffs are unable to learn the identity of the driver by this 2 deadline, the Court will not grant any further extensions of the deadline to amend the 3 complaint on the hope that something more will be unearthed that was not discovered 4 within these seven months. 5 If the identity of the driver is discovered after July 15, 2024, Plaintiffs may move to 6 amend the complaint showing first good cause under Rule 16, followed by the grounds for 7 leave to amend under Rule 15. See Upton v. Corizon Health Care Inc., No. CV-17-01502- 8 PHX-JAT, 2019 WL 581274, at *2 (D. Ariz. Feb. 12, 2019) (“Once the district court has 9 filed a pretrial scheduling order pursuant to Rule 16 which establishes a timetable for 10 amending pleadings, a motion seeking to amend pleadings is governed first by Rule 16(b), 11 and only secondarily by Rule 15(a).”) (cleaned up). 12 Accordingly, 13 IT IS ORDERED that the motion for extension of time (Doc. 50) is granted to the 14 limited extent that the deadline to amend the complaint is extended to July 15, 2024. If 15 Plaintiffs amend the complaint within this deadline, the service requirements of the Order 16 at Doc. 30 remain in effect.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 Marina Padilla, et al., No. CV-23-02380-PHX-JAT
10 Plaintiffs, ORDER
11 v.
12 Veyo LLC, et al.,
13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ third motion to extend deadlines (Doc. 50), 16 which Defendants oppose (Doc. 53).1 As discussed in this Court’s order of April 12, 2024, 17 and continuing through today, Plaintiffs seek the identity of a Veyo-dispatched driver that 18 they allege picked up a vulnerable adult.2 (Id.) Defendants claim Plaintiffs have had a 19 sufficient opportunity to conduct discovery, that such discovery has not produced the name 20 of a driver, and that Plaintiffs should be forced to give up the search because at this point 21 it is a “fishing expedition.” (Doc. 53 at 9). Plaintiffs assert the discovery they have 22 conducted thus far has produced questions that they seek to resolve. 23 For example, on May 20, 2024, this Court ordered Defendants to produce: (1) the
24 1 Plaintiffs did not file a reply. While no reply is required under the rules, in their response Defendants make some pointed allegations about Plaintiffs’ alleged misrepresentations 25 about the state of discovery in this case. The Court will proceed to rule on this motion, but may inquire about when Plaintiffs received certain discovery at a later point. 26 2 In short summary, Plaintiffs allege that a Veyo driver failed to transport a vulnerable adult 27 to the correct location. (Doc. 13 at 2). Defendants claim the vulnerable adult was never picked up by a Veyo driver, and as a result, claim that Defendants should not be parties to 28 this case. (Doc. 13 at 3). 1 GPS data for Mr. Suleymanyan from 1:00 p.m. MST, December 15, 2022 to 4:00 p.m. 2 MST, December 15, 2022 and (2) the GPS data for all Veyo drivers from 1:00 p.m. MST, 3 December 15, 2022 to 4:00 p.m. MST, December 15, 2022 within three miles of the 4 vulnerable adult’s pick-up address. (Doc. 45). In the pending motion, Plaintiffs claim 5 Defendants have not produced: (1) GPS information for drivers who were logged onto the 6 Veyo App but did not accept a ride; (2) GPS data for drivers who accepted a ride but then 7 cancelled the ride before picking up a rider; (3) GPS information for the Lyft drivers;3 and 8 (4) GPS information before a ride was accepted by a driver. 9 Defendants advised Plaintiffs that they do not have the GPS location of drivers who 10 are logged into their app (for the purpose of accepting rides) before a ride is accepted (items 11 1 and 4 above). (Doc. 50 at 3). Plaintiffs are skeptical of this representation because it 12 would make it impossible for Defendants to dispatch the closest (or a close) driver without 13 knowing the location of the driver before the ride is accepted. (Id.). To this end, Plaintiffs 14 seek to take a 30(b)(6) deposition of a Veyo representative to understand the Veyo 15 platform, which the Court has permitted. (Doc. 58). 16 As to item 2, the GPS data for drivers who accepted, but then cancelled, a ride, 17 Defendants advise that they have already given this information to Plaintiffs. (Doc. 53 at 18 8). The Court is unsure how the parties can disagree regarding whether Plaintiffs have this 19 information. See footnote 1 supra. However, as discussed below, Defendants will be 20 required to produce this information if they have not already done so. 21 As to item 3, the GPS data for the Veyo-dispatched Lyft drivers, Plaintiffs argue 22 that Defendants claim that they only have the pickup and drop off locations of rides 23 outsourced to Lyft, and that they do not have GPS data for the vehicles/drivers. (Doc. 50 24 at 2). As a result, Plaintiffs seek to subpoena this information from Lyft. (Id.). Plaintiffs 25 do not mention whether this subpoena has been sent.4 Conversely, Defendants claim that 26 3 It is undisputed that when no Veyo drivers are available, Veyo uses Lyft drivers. 27 4 Plaintiffs’ requested extension of the amendment deadline is July 3, 2024; thus, the 28 subpoena would need to have already gone out to be due back before this deadline. 1 they have already disclosed the GPS data for the Lyft rides to Plaintiffs. (Doc. 53 at 8 2 (“Defendants provided a list of trips…that were provided through Veyo by Lyft. 3 Defendants provided GPS data for each of those trips.”) (emphasis added). Like item 2, 4 the Court is unsure how the parties can disagree regarding whether Plaintiffs have this 5 information. See footnote 1 supra. However, as discussed below, Defendants will be 6 required to produce this information if they have not already done so. To be clear, 7 Defendants must produce all Lyft information in their possession, custody or control. See 8 footnote 6 infra. This includes GPS locations of drivers logged into the Lyft app prior to 9 those drivers accepting rides (within the time and geographic limits set below). 10 From the Court’s perspective, the May 20, 2024 Order already required disclosure 11 of everything within items 1-4 herein that is in Defendants’ possession, custody and 12 control. For clarity, the Court will re-order the production of this information. Defendants 13 need not re-produce any information previously produced. This Order merely requires 14 Defendants to produce any responsive information to items 1-4 that was withheld on 15 relevance (or other) grounds.5 However, to the extent Defendants respond that such 16 information does not exist in their possession, custody or control the Court cannot order it 17 produced. If that response turns out to be false, Plaintiffs may move for sanctions. Any 18 such motion is due within 14 days of discovery of the undisclosed responsive information 19 in Defendants’ possession, custody or control. 20 Based on the representations made by Plaintiffs in their motion, which the Court 21 finds to be good cause, the Court will grant one last extension of the deadline to amend the 22 complaint–to July 15, 2024. The Rule 16 scheduling conference in this case was held on 23 January 18, 2024; with the Rule 26(f) conference having occurred on December 19, 2023. 24 (Doc. 13 at 2). By mid-July 2024, Plaintiffs will have had almost seven months since the 25 Rule 26(f) conference to learn the identity of the driver/vehicle alleged to have picked up 26 5 The Court’s concern lies in the fact that Defendants state, “Defendants have no additional 27 relevant GPS information to provide.” (Doc. 53 at 7) (emphasis added). As noted in the Court’s June 7, 2024 Order, to date Defendants have been defining relevance far too 28 narrowly; thus, this Order will clarify that a relevance objection to items 1-4 herein is not well taken. (See Doc. 58 (discussing relevance)). 1 the vulnerable adult. If Plaintiffs are unable to learn the identity of the driver by this 2 deadline, the Court will not grant any further extensions of the deadline to amend the 3 complaint on the hope that something more will be unearthed that was not discovered 4 within these seven months. 5 If the identity of the driver is discovered after July 15, 2024, Plaintiffs may move to 6 amend the complaint showing first good cause under Rule 16, followed by the grounds for 7 leave to amend under Rule 15. See Upton v. Corizon Health Care Inc., No. CV-17-01502- 8 PHX-JAT, 2019 WL 581274, at *2 (D. Ariz. Feb. 12, 2019) (“Once the district court has 9 filed a pretrial scheduling order pursuant to Rule 16 which establishes a timetable for 10 amending pleadings, a motion seeking to amend pleadings is governed first by Rule 16(b), 11 and only secondarily by Rule 15(a).”) (cleaned up). 12 Accordingly, 13 IT IS ORDERED that the motion for extension of time (Doc. 50) is granted to the 14 limited extent that the deadline to amend the complaint is extended to July 15, 2024. If 15 Plaintiffs amend the complaint within this deadline, the service requirements of the Order 16 at Doc. 30 remain in effect. No other deadlines are extended. If the driver’s identity is not 17 discovered by July 15, 2024, the Court will not extend this deadline any further on that 18 basis. If the identity is discovered after this deadline, Plaintiffs may file an untimely motion 19 to amend as specified above. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiffs discover the name of the driver and 21 amend the complaint by July 15, 2024, by this same date, Plaintiffs must also move to 22 extend all other deadlines in this case to accommodate the addition of another party. As 23 previously ordered, all parties must supplement their disclosure statements regarding the 24 citizenship of this new party if there is an amendment to the complaint. 25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within seven days of this Order, Defendants 26 must produce any information not already produced that is in their possession, custody or 27 control that falls into the following categories: (1) GPS information for drivers who were 28 logged onto the Veyo App but did not accept a ride; (2) GPS data for drivers who accepted || aride but then cancelled the ride before picking up a rider; (3) GPS information for Veyo- 2|| dispatched Lyft drivers to the extent such information is in any Defendant’s possession, 3 || custody or control; ° and (4) GPS information for drivers who were logged onto the Veyo 4|| App before a ride was accepted by a driver. Each of these categories is limited to 1:00 p.m. || MST, December 15, 2022 to 4:00 p.m. MST, December 15, 2022 within three miles of the || vulnerable adult’s pick-up address. 7 Dated this 11th day of June, 2024. 8 9 10 James A. Teilborg Senior United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 || © Neither party raises the issue of control at this point. And as discussed above, Defendants claim to have already produced this data. However, to the extent Plaintiffs are correct that □□ Defendants claim to not possess this data, the breadth of “control” is important. To the extent Veyo’s agreement with Lyft gives Veyo a right of access to the GPS information of the Veyo-dispatched Lyft drivers because the ride is for a Veyo client, billed through Veyo’s platform, depending on the circumstances, Veyo may control the information even if Lyft actually has the information.
-5-