Baer

I. BACKGROUND

21 The Court presumes the parties’ familiarity with the basic facts giving rise to this case. In 22 the First Order, the Court analyzed the Staffmark plaintiffs’ ostensible binding arbitration 23 agreement separately from those of the other plaintiffs. The Staffmark plaintiffs were technically 24 not employees of defendant. Rather, they worked for a third-party called Staffmark, and were 25 assigned employment duties at Tesla under contract. According to Tesla, the Staffmark plaintiffs 26 signed a non-disclosure agreement (“an NDA”) with Tesla which included an arbitration provision,

1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. but plaintiffs contest the authenticity of those signatures. The first motion to compel arbitration contained only the signature pages of those NDAs along with wet signatures that Tesla claimed evidenced consent to the NDA’s contents. In its First Order, the Court stated: . . . the record is incomplete. The parties have not provided the Court with complete copies 4 of the agreement the Staffmark plaintiffs…