Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Background

The court considered a joint letter presenting a discovery dispute. Uber sought to depose Jane Doe in person in the United States and have its mental-health expert conduct an independent medical examination during the same visit. Jane Doe argued that the deposition should occur in Guadalajara, Mexico, or remotely by videoconference.

Jane Doe is the plaintiff and a key witness. The opinion states that she seeks more than ordinary emotional-distress damages. She did not argue that an in-person deposition and examination would themselves cause harm, but argued that she should not have to travel to the United States. She said that traveling to San Francisco, where she had been assaulted, would further traumatize her. Uber agreed to accommodate her by holding the proceedings in Southern California or another location in the United States. The court also noted that she had traveled to the Bay Area for the criminal trial.

Ruling

The court granted Uber’s request for an in-person deposition and independent medical examination in the United States. It found that Uber had shown good cause for requiring the proceedings to occur in person and that Jane Doe had not shown undue hardship or compelling circumstances justifying her refusal to travel to the United States.

The court expressly made no ruling on the scope of the medical examination because the parties had apparently not yet discussed that issue. It also stated that it could not compel Mr. Padilla to appear for a deposition without a subpoena. Because the record contained no evidence supporting Uber’s claim that Jane Doe had promised for months to produce Mr. Padilla for a deposition in Mexico, the court made no ruling on that issue. The order disposed of Docket No. 126.