Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Background

The court considered a joint letter concerning Jane Doe’s discovery request for the contact information of three women who had complained to Uber about the Uber driver who assaulted Doe. Doe already had Uber’s entire investigative file for each complainant, but argued that the women might provide additional relevant information about their interactions with Uber after making their complaints.

Doe proposed using a Belaire opt-out process. Under that process, the complainants would receive notice of the proposed disclosure and could object to having their contact information shared. Doe argued that the factors courts sometimes consider for this procedure favored disclosure: the women had voluntarily provided their contact information when they complained, the opt-out process would protect their privacy, and it would be unfair for Uber to have sole possession of their contact information.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that the limited probative value of the requested discovery did not outweigh the complainants’ privacy interests. It rejected comparing complaints about ordinary consumer products with complaints about sexual assault or attempted sexual assault. The court reasoned that victims of sexual misconduct may be reluctant to report it, and that treating their complaints as reducing their expectation of privacy could discourage future victims from reporting similar conduct.

The court also concluded that the disclosure would constitute a serious invasion of privacy because the women had complained about sexually abusive conduct and, based on the record, had not made their experiences public. The court noted that Doe herself was proceeding under a pseudonym. It found this case materially different from wage-and-hour and consumer class actions in which Belaire notices are commonly used, and concluded that an opt-out process would not sufficiently protect the complainants because they might not receive or read the notice.

Finally, the court rejected the argument that disclosure was necessary to provide equal access to witnesses. It found this case unlike a putative class action in which an employer’s access to employees or class members might otherwise leave the plaintiff without comparable access to witnesses.

Ruling

Judge Jacquelyn Corley denied Doe’s request to disclose the complainants’ identities and contact information through an opt-out process. The order stated that it disposed of Docket No. 96.