Ye v. Uber Technologies

Background

Plaintiffs allege that Uber falsely advertises arrival times and charges a price premium for faster pickup times. They also seek declaratory relief concerning whether Uber’s arbitration clause is unconscionable. Uber had filed motions to compel arbitration, and the parties disputed discovery related to the unconscionability issue.

In an earlier discovery order, the court permitted discovery but found that most of plaintiffs’ proposed requests were overbroad. The court identified Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 6 and Requests for Production Nos. 1 and 2 as requests that appeared connected to plaintiffs’ unconscionability arguments. The parties later submitted the discovery letters resolved by this order.

Rulings on the Discovery Requests

Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 6. Interrogatory No. 2 seeks the number of times Uber asserted that a written notice of dispute did not comply with the Terms of Service, including the pre-arbitration dispute-resolution process. Interrogatory No. 6 seeks the number of times Uber asserted that arbitration could not proceed because of noncompliance with the Terms of Service and related procedures. Because plaintiffs limited these requests to the operative 2026 Terms of Service, the court ordered Uber to respond. The court found that the information could bear on whether the pre-dispute process is so arduous or time-consuming that it creates an unconscionability issue or discourages consumers from pursuing claims.

Interrogatory No. 3. This request seeks information about whether a corrected notice of dispute was submitted in the instances identified by Interrogatory No. 2 and how long it took between the initial and corrected notices. The court ordered Uber to respond, again as limited to the operative 2026 Terms of Service. The court found that the information was connected to plaintiffs’ argument that the process could delay claims while the statute of limitations continues to run.

Interrogatory Nos. 12–14. Plaintiffs asked to submit a separate joint discovery letter about these requests, which concern the number of times Uber initiated arbitration or a lawsuit. The court found that the requests were not proportionate to the needs of the case. It reasoned that the number of times Uber actually took advantage of an alleged lack of mutuality was not necessary to determine whether the provision lacked mutuality in the first place.

Requests for Production Nos. 1 and 2. Request No. 1 seeks documents sufficient to show why Uber asserted that a notice of dispute was noncompliant in the instances identified by Interrogatory No. 2. Request No. 2 seeks similar documents concerning the instances identified by Interrogatory No. 6. For the reasons supporting the interrogatory rulings, the court ordered Uber to produce responsive documents.

Request for Production No. 3. This request seeks written processes, scripts, or template questions used by Uber. Plaintiffs argued that the request could show whether pre-arbitration conferences were designed to achieve informal resolution. The court was not convinced that this information was relevant to the unconscionability issue as presented, which focused primarily on whether the arbitration and delegation clauses created lengthy delays before an arbitrator could decide unconscionability. The court therefore required no production under Request No. 3.

Deadline and Disposition

The court ordered Uber to provide the discovery it required within three weeks of the order. Judge Kandis Westmore stated that the order disposed of Docket Nos. 42 and 43. The order addressed discovery and did not decide whether Uber’s arbitration clause is ultimately unconscionable or whether arbitration must be compelled.