WAYMO LLC v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., C 17-00939 WHA. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20170405e23
Visitors: 3
Filed: Apr. 04, 2017
Latest Update: Apr. 04, 2017
Summary: ORDER RE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . By APRIL 10 AT NOON, defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Ottomotto LLC, and Otto Trucking LLC shall state under oath whether any of them has ever resisted arbitration on the ground that an adverse party seeking to enforce an arbitration agreement was not actually a signatory to said agreement. If so, then defendants shall also produce copies of the previous arbitration agreement(s) and demand(s) involved, as well as their res
Summary: ORDER RE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . By APRIL 10 AT NOON, defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Ottomotto LLC, and Otto Trucking LLC shall state under oath whether any of them has ever resisted arbitration on the ground that an adverse party seeking to enforce an arbitration agreement was not actually a signatory to said agreement. If so, then defendants shall also produce copies of the previous arbitration agreement(s) and demand(s) involved, as well as their resp..
More
ORDER RE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT
WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.
By APRIL 10 AT NOON, defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Ottomotto LLC, and Otto Trucking LLC shall state under oath whether any of them has ever resisted arbitration on the ground that an adverse party seeking to enforce an arbitration agreement was not actually a signatory to said agreement. If so, then defendants shall also produce copies of the previous arbitration agreement(s) and demand(s) involved, as well as their response(s) thereto. This is not limited to filings made in a court but also extends to letters and emails.
Also by APRIL 10 AT NOON, plaintiff Waymo LLC shall state under oath whether it, Waymo Holding Inc., Google Inc., or Alphabet Inc. has ever demanded arbitration against an adverse party on the ground that the adverse party was bound by an arbitration agreement even though Waymo, Waymo Holding, Google, or Alphabet was not actually a signatory to said agreement. If so, then plaintiff shall also produce copies of the previous arbitration agreement(s) and demand(s) involved. Again, this is not limited to filings made in a court but also extends to letters and emails.
The declarant for each side shall also describe the extent to which that side thoroughly investigated its records to ensure the accuracy of its statement. The declarants may be subject to questioning under oath.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
