R. v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Background

This order resolved a joint discovery letter concerning alleged misconduct by Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane Conway & Wise, LLP, the law firm representing plaintiffs in the related cases Jaylynn Dean v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 23-cv-06708-CRB, and A.R. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 24-cv-07821-CRB.

Uber raised three issues: (1) non-party witness I.E. allegedly failed to produce text messages exchanged with A.R. after receiving instructions from counsel; (2) Dean allegedly failed to preserve evidence when she replaced her iPhone; and (3) Dean and four friends represented by Peiffer Wolf allegedly failed to prevent Snapchat from automatically deleting potentially relevant messages.

Sanctions request

To the extent Uber’s joint letter sought sanctions, the court found the request procedurally defective because the local rules require a motion for sanctions to meet specified requirements. The only sanction Uber specifically sought at that time was cost-shifting. The court denied that request, without prejudice to a future sanctions motion that complies with the local rules.

A.R. case

The court overruled A.R.’s relevance objections to messages referenced in a draft email by I.E. The court explained that discovery relevance is generally broader than relevance at trial and that the possibility of duplicate production did not justify refusing to produce subpoena-responsive documents. The court stated that it was not clear the messages were duplicative because A.R. apparently had not produced all, or any, of them.

The court ordered I.E. to produce no later than September 5, 2025, the text messages referenced in the draft email and any 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 did not immediately order additional depositions of I.E. and A.R. Instead, it required the parties to meet and confer by September 12, 2025, about whether those depositions were appropriate and, if so, what topics they would cover. If the parties could not agree, they could file a joint letter by September 19, 2025.

Dean case and preservation of electronic evidence

Dean testified that she had replaced her phone multiple times since the alleged rape at issue and traded in her old phones. She acknowledged that not all phone data transferred to an iCloud account. The court noted that Dean most recently replaced her phone in 2024, after she filed her case in December 2023, although the record did not establish the timing of every replacement in relation to her duty to preserve evidence.

Uber also cited evidence that Dean and other witnesses communicated about the litigation and its subject matter through Snapchat without changing Snapchat’s default deletion settings. The court said it was unclear when some communications occurred in relation to the witnesses’ duties to preserve evidence, but it appeared that some communications were lost after Dean had such a duty.

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 concerning what evidence was lost was limited and Uber had not shown that replacement was feasible. The court left open a future request that more clearly identifies what was lost and whether it can be replaced.

The court allowed Uber to inquire whether Dean and the four non-party witnesses were expected to identify potential sources of electronically stored information, such as laptops, phones, email, social-media accounts, and messaging accounts. Uber could also ask what preservation steps they were expected to take, including backing up devices, notifying counsel when devices were replaced or discarded, and handling platforms that automatically delete messages. The court stated that Uber could ask what the individuals knew about whether messages were preserved, but it could not inquire into the specific wording of preservation instructions from counsel.

Ruling and required next steps

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 to be completed consistently with the order. The court anticipated that the issues could initially be addressed through declarations, unless the parties agreed that reopening depositions would be more efficient. If they could not agree, they could file a joint letter by the same deadline. The order was issued by Magistrate Judge A. J. Cisneros.