Full Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 12 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; RASIER, No. 26-2390 LLC; RASIER-CA, LLC, D.C. No. 3:23-md-03084-CRB Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent, PLAINTIFFS IN MDL NO. 3084; ZIAD ZEIN; SYD SYED; KEITH BRIEN; MAYBEL UPIERRE PEREZ; YOVANIS ESCORC A ESCORCIA BUSTAMANTE II; BRYAN M. CARTER; DENCITY ODELUGA; ROBERT RUFFNER; RYAN TAYLOR-BYERS; PATRICK SHAMWAMA; NADEEM AMIN; MAJDI ALTWAITI; RICHARD KOKUMA; HECTOR HORLANDY MIER; RASHAD MCCLANAHAN; RAZIK MOUSSAOUI, Real Parties in Interest. Argued and Submitted October 28, 2026 San Francisco, California * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Before: CLIFTON, BYBEE, and SUNG, Circuit Judges. Petitioners Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, and Rasier-CA, LLC (collectively, “Uber”) seek a writ of mandamus vacating an allegedly erroneous discovery ruling of the district court. “A writ is an extraordinary remedy[,] and Petitioners bear the burden of showing that their right to it is clear and indisputable.” In re Crain Walnut Shelling, LP, 175 F.4th 1069, 1075 (9th Cir. 2026) (quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Mersho, 6 F.4th 891, 897 (9th Cir. 2021)). Uber has not met that burden because it failed to demonstrate that the district court’s decision was clearly erroneous as a matter of law. See In re Mersho, 6 F.4th at 897 (“To determine whether a writ of mandamus should be granted, we weigh the five factors outlined in Bauman v. United States District Court.”); Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650, 654–55 (9th Cir. 1977) (listing factors); In re Van Dusen, 654 F.3d 838, 841 (9th Cir. 2011) (“The third [Bauman] factor, clear error as a matter of law, is a necessary condition for granting a writ of mandamus.”). The petition is DENIED.1 1 The motions for leave to file an amicus brief (Dkt. Nos. 6, 8) are granted. 2 26-2390