In re Uber Technologies, Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation

Summary

This order resolves a joint discovery letter in the multidistrict litigation concerning alleged passenger sexual assaults involving Uber. The court denies without prejudice Uber’s request for cost-shifting sanctions and addresses production of text messages, preservation and collection of electronically stored information, and possible further depositions. The court orders additional production by a non-party witness and directs the parties to meet and confer regarding discovery and preservation issues.

Holdings

1. Uber's request for cost-shifting sanctions is denied without prejudice as procedurally defective for failing to comply with local rules requiring a noticed motion.
2. I.E. must produce the text messages she referenced in her draft email and any other communications with A.R. that relate to the present action by September 5, 2025. If she asserts privilege, she must produce a privilege log.
3. The parties must meet and confer by September 12, 2025, regarding whether further depositions are appropriate and the topics. If no agreement, they must file a joint letter by September 19, 2025.
4. Uber's request to replace lost documents is denied without prejudice because the record of what was lost is limited and Uber provided no evidence of feasibility.
5. Uber may inquire whether Dean and her four friends were expected to identify potential sources of ESI and what they were expected to do to preserve communications, including actions regarding backing up devices, notifying counsel of device replacement, and handling settings on messaging/social media platforms. Uber may also inquire what individuals knew about message preservation and explore whether lost material may be recovered.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Court should impose discovery sanctions on plaintiffs' counsel for misconduct.
2. Whether the Court should compel non-party witness I.E. to produce text messages referenced in a draft email.
3. Whether the Court should order further depositions of I.E. and Plaintiff A.R.
4. Whether the Court should order plaintiffs to replace lost documents obtainable from third-party sources like Snapchat.

Disposition

other