Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Background

Jane Doe brought a negligence claim against Uber Technologies, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries, Rasier, LLC and Rasier CA, LLC. The claim concerns an assault by a former Uber driver who posed as a current Uber driver.

The parties had entered a stipulated protective order governing confidential discovery. Uber designated three deposition transcripts as confidential. Jane Doe challenged those designations, and Uber moved to maintain them under the protective order. The depositions were given by Wade Stormer, Billie Garrett, and Briana Lambert.

Legal standard

The court explained that the public generally may access information produced during discovery. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), a court may protect confidential information for good cause. Because the parties had agreed to the protective order without an initial good-cause showing, Uber had the burden to show why the challenged material should remain protected.

The court applied a two-step test. First, Uber had to show that public disclosure would cause particularized harm—specific harm tied to the information at issue. If Uber made that showing, the court would then balance public and private interests using factors concerning privacy, the purpose of disclosure, public health and safety, fairness, and the public importance of the case.

Analysis

The court rejected Uber’s argument that testimony about two earlier sexual-assault incidents would invade third-party privacy or discourage future reporting. Jane Doe did not seek identifying information such as names, language spoken, residency, citizenship, or potentially embarrassing details. The court held that the testimony could be disclosed with identifying information redacted. It found that Uber had not shown a particularized risk of harm from the remaining testimony.

The court also rejected Uber’s broad assertions that the depositions revealed confidential and proprietary internal systems, tools, strategies, investigation processes, procedures, findings, communications, and recommendations. Uber submitted a declaration describing possible competitive and security risks, but it did not identify specific portions of the transcripts that would reveal protected information. The court found that general claims of confidentiality, competitive injury, or possible exploitation by criminals were insufficient.

The court likewise rejected Uber’s argument that disclosure could cause economic harm, undermine public confidence, or embarrass Uber or its employees. Those assertions were not specific or narrowly tied to particular testimony. Because Uber failed to show that disclosure would cause particularized harm, the court did not conduct the second-step balancing analysis.

Disposition

The court DENIED Uber’s motion to maintain the confidentiality designations. The parties were ordered to meet and confer by video about the scope of redactions concerning the prior sexual-assault incidents. The court stated that identifying information should remain confidential where appropriate.

The court also denied the administrative motions to seal at Docket Nos. 112 and 117 without prejudice to renewal in a more narrowly tailored form. Uber was given until December 1, 2021, to file narrower versions. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 112, 113, and 117. The court vacated the hearing on the motion but retained the scheduled case-management conference.