In re Uber Technologies, Inc. Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation

Summary

The court resolves a joint discovery letter concerning alleged misconduct by plaintiffs’ counsel and potential failures to preserve or produce electronically stored information in two Uber sexual-assault litigation cases. The court denies Uber’s procedurally defective request for cost-shifting sanctions without prejudice, orders a non-party witness to produce specified text messages, and permits limited discovery concerning preservation and collection practices. The court also directs the parties to meet and confer regarding further depositions and preservation-related disclosures.

Holdings

1. A request for sanctions, including cost-shifting, presented through a procedurally defective joint discovery letter cannot be granted; Uber's request was denied without prejudice to a future sanctions motion complying with the local rules.
2. I.E. must produce the text messages referenced in her draft email and any other communications with A.R. relating to the action; if privilege or similar protection is asserted, I.E. must provide a privilege log.
3. Uber may inquire into the kinds and categories of electronically stored information that I.E., A.R., Dean, and the four represented non-party witnesses were instructed to preserve and collect, and the specific actions they were instructed to undertake, but may not inquire into the specific wording of counsel's preservation instructions.
4. The request to order replacement of lost documents from third-party sources was denied without prejudice because Uber had not identified with sufficient specificity what evidence was lost or shown that replacement was feasible.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Uber's request for sanctions and cost-shifting was procedurally proper when presented through a joint discovery letter rather than a sanctions motion complying with the local rules.
2. Whether I.E. was required to produce text messages and other communications with A.R. relating to the action despite objections based on relevance or possible duplication.
3. Whether Uber could obtain discovery concerning the categories of electronically stored information that I.E., A.R., Dean, and other witnesses were instructed to preserve and collect without obtaining the specific wording of counsel's preservation instructions.
4. Whether the record supported ordering replacement of lost documents from third-party sources such as Snapchat.

Disposition

other