Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

15-1175 - Antman, et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc.


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
15-1175 - Antman, et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
October 9, 2015
PDF | More
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)
October 19, 2015
PDF | More
ORDER GRANTING UBER'S MOTION TO DISMISS MR. ANTMAN'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT. The court dismisses the First Amended Complaint without prejudice for lack of standing. Mr. Antman may file a Second Amended Complaint within 28 days from the date of this order. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 10/19/2015.(lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/19/2015)
November 19, 2015
PDF | More
ORDER by Judge Laurel Beeler granting 48 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 50 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. The relevant information in [ECF No. 49], and the whole of [ECF No. 51], are sealed. (lblc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2015)
December 2, 2015
PDF | More
plaintiff files an amended complaint. The court directs the parties to confer on, and work to resolve, the non-party's "substantive objections" to the subpoenas. (See ECF No. 50-2 at 8.) The court also directs Uber and the non-party to propose a protective order that prevents any information gleaned from this discovery from being used in other litigation including, specifically, Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Doe, No. 3:15-cv-908 (N.D. Cal.). The defendant may not disclose any information obtained from these subpoenas, for any purpose, before the court enters that protective order. The court vacates the hearing set for December 10, 2015; its primary purpose was to try to work out some of the objections to the scope of the subpoenas, objections that now will be addressed first during the meet-and-confer process set forth in the attached order. Modified on 12/3/2015 (lsS, COURT STAFF).Order granting in part in part 51 Discovery Letter Brief entered by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. For the reasons discussed in the attached order, the subpoenas (see ECF No. 50-2 at 11-22, 24-29, 31-35, 37-42) need not be delayed until the
December 23, 2015
PDF | More
AMENDED ORDER by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler granting 68 Stipulation re Briefing Schedule re ECF No. 60 and 61 (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/28/2015) (Entered: 12/28/2015) (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/23/2015)
January 14, 2016
PDF | More
ORDER by Judge Laurel Beeler denying 49 Motion Directing Comcast to Produce Subpoenaed Records; granting 58 Motion for Protective Order. (lblc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/14/2016)
May 10, 2018
PDF | More
urt grants Uber's request for further briefing. The parties must confer within 14 days and settle on any briefing schedule. (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2018)ORDER by Judge Laurel Beeler granting 182 Motion to Dismiss. As set forth in the attached order, the court grants Uber's motion and dismisses the complaint with prejudice. If the plaintiffs want to pursue a fees motion, then the co