Dean v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Background

This order resolved a joint discovery letter concerning conduct by Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane Conway & Wise, LLP, which represented plaintiffs in the bellwether cases Dean v. Uber Technologies, Inc. and A.R. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Uber raised three evidence-related concerns: non-party witness I.E. allegedly failed to produce text messages exchanged with A.R.; Dean replaced her iPhone and traded in her old phones, with some data apparently not transferred; and Dean and four represented non-party witnesses used Snapchat without changing its default message-deletion settings.

Sanctions request

The filing sought sanctions and specifically requested cost-shifting. The court held that the sanctions request was procedurally defective because it did not comply with the local rules governing sanctions motions. The court denied Uber’s request for cost-shifting, without prejudice to a future sanctions motion that complies with those rules.

A.R. case

The court overruled A.R.’s objections that the communications referenced in I.E.’s draft email were irrelevant or duplicative. It explained that discovery relevance is broader than trial relevance and that possible duplication did not justify refusing to produce responsive subpoenaed documents. By September 5, 2025, I.E. was required to produce the text messages referenced in the draft email and other communications with A.R. relating to the action. If I.E. claimed privilege or similar protection, she was required to provide a privilege log.

The court also addressed possible further depositions of I.E. and A.R. Uber could not ask about the specific wording of preservation instructions from counsel, but it could ask what categories of electronically stored information the witnesses were instructed to preserve and collect and what actions they were instructed to take. The parties had to meet and confer by September 12, 2025, about whether further depositions were appropriate and, if so, their subjects. If they could not agree, they could file a joint letter by September 19, 2025.

Dean case

Dean testified that she had replaced her phone multiple times since the alleged rape and traded in the old phones. The court stated that at least one replacement occurred during the litigation because Dean testified that she most recently replaced her phone in 2024. The court also stated that some communications through Snapchat appeared to have been lost after Dean had a duty to preserve evidence, although the timing of some communications and the non-party witnesses’ preservation duties was unclear.

Uber requested an order requiring replacement, where feasible, of lost documents obtainable from third-party sources such as Snapchat. The court denied that request without prejudice because the record was limited and Uber had not shown that replacing any lost material was feasible.

The court allowed Uber to inquire whether Dean and the four represented non-party witnesses were expected to identify possible sources of electronically stored information, such as phones, laptops, email, social-media accounts, and messaging accounts. The inquiry could cover instructions about backing up devices, notifying counsel before devices were replaced or discarded, and handling platforms that automatically delete communications. Uber could also investigate whether lost material could be recovered or replaced.

Disposition and deadlines

The court ordered Uber and counsel for Dean and the four represented non-party witnesses to meet and confer by September 5, 2025, and file a stipulation identifying the discovery, disclosures, and deadlines required by the order. The court anticipated that declarations could address the issues initially, unless the parties agreed that reopening depositions was more efficient. If the parties could not reach a stipulation, they could file a joint letter by the same deadline.