Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Doe I

Plaintiff: Uber Technologies, Inc.
Defendant: John Doe I
Case Number: 3:2015cv00908
Filed: February 27, 2015
Court: California Northern District Court
Office: San Francisco Office
County: San Francisco
Presiding Judge: Laurel Beeler
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
October 9, 2015 71 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.S NOTICE OFDISCOVERY RELATED TO UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. V. JOHN DOE I, CASE NO. 3:15-CV-00908-LB, AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 10/8/2015. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2015)
July 20, 2015 51 Opinion or Order of the Court Order (Redacted Version) by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler denying 24 Motion to Quash. The court denies the motion to quash and grants the Subscriber's request to file the motion as "Subscriber." The court stays its order until July 31, 2015 to allow Subscriber to file a notice of appeal and to move to stay the case pending appeal. This disposes of ECF Nos. 24 and 25-4.(Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 7/20/2015)
May 30, 2015 26 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER. The court agrees that the motion-to-compel process should apply here. But given the nature of the dispute, the court also thinks that the parties should comply with the requirements for the resolution of discovery disputes set forth in the standing order (attached) including the requirement that the parties meet and confer in person. Often that facilitates an earlier resolution or a narrowing of the issue. The court directs that meeting within five business days. If the parties determi ne that the dispute is capable of being addressed in a joint letter brief as opposed to a fully briefed motion, they may file a joint letter brief. The letter brief must be filed under the Civil Events category of Motions and Related Filings > Motions General > Discovery Letter Brief. If they determine that the motion to compel remains the right approach, they need not file a joint letter. (Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 5/30/2015)
April 27, 2015 20 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER by Judge Laurel Beeler granting 16 Ex Parte Application ; granting 17 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 18 Ex Parte Application ; granting 19 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. Neither Uber nor GitHub need notify John Doe I of the new GitHub subpoena. The Comcast subpoena is subject to the usual notice terms as expressed in the order. (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2015)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the California Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Doe I
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Uber Technologies, Inc.
Represented By: Julie Erin Schwartz
Represented By: James G. Snell
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: John Doe I
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?