Mobley v. Workday, Inc.

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DEREK L. MOBLEY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WORKDAY, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 23-cv-00770-RFL
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE
ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Re: Dkt. Nos. 351, 364
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Beeler’s Discovery Order (Dkt. No. 340
(“Order”)), the Motion for Relief from that Order (Dkt. Nos. 351, 363), as well as the underlying
motion and briefs submitted about the discovery disputes (Dkt. Nos. 310, 315, 319, 321, 331)
and associated papers. With respect to the termination of Plaintiffs’ letter brief as moot, the
Order is well-reasoned and not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Considering Workday’s
supplemental facts was within Judge Beeler’s discretion, and Plaintiffs had the opportunity to
raise any objection or respond to the filing at or before the hearing on the parties’ discovery
disputes.
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief also challenges the Order on the basis that it does not
address whether production should be ordered because Workday has “possession” of the
documents and data in dispute under the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(1),
even if Workday does not have “control” of those materials. It does not appear that the Order
addresses this issue directly. Although the issue was raised by Plaintiffs in a cursory fashion in
the underlying dispute and thus was not technically waived, it does not appear to have been the
focus of the parties’ argument before Judge Beeler or to have been directly addressed by the
Case 3:23-cv-00770-RFL Document 366 Filed 06/24/26 Page 1 of 2

2
parties in a fulsome fashion. Therefore, the Court VACATES the portion of the Order to the
extent it declines to “compel production of Workday’s customers’ data” (Order at 10)1 and
REMANDS for consideration of the possession issue. The Motion for Relief is otherwise
DENIED. The parties shall not file any additional briefing or evidence unless instructed to do so
by Judge Beeler in her discretion. Plaintiffs’ administrative motion for leave to file a reply is
therefore DENIED. (Dkt. No. 364.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 24, 2026
RITA F. LIN
United States District Judge
1 Citations to page numbers refer to ECF pagination.
Case 3:23-cv-00770-RFL Document 366 Filed 06/24/26 Page 2 of 2