Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Background

Uber moved for issuance of letters rogatory to the Central Authority of Mexico for International Judicial Assistance. A letter rogatory is a formal request from a court handling a case to a foreign court or authority to perform a judicial act, such as taking a witness’s deposition. Uber sought the deposition of Jane Doe’s fiancé, Cuauthli Padilla Arias, whom the opinion identifies as a citizen of Mexico.

Uber sought testimony about six subjects: information Padilla Arias gave Doe to help her identify the vehicle paired with her through the Uber application; his history of ordering rides for Doe before the alleged August 14, 2018 incident; Doe’s prior use of Uber; Doe’s habits, activities, mood, phobias, appetite, energy level, relationships, and sleep patterns after the incident; marketing, advertising, social-media, or news information that Doe or Padilla Arias reviewed about the Uber application and its safety features; and information Doe told him about the incident, including her failure to identify the correct vehicle afterward.

Parties’ Positions

Uber argued that the requested testimony was relevant to Doe’s factual allegations and damages. Doe did not dispute that the testimony was relevant and did not otherwise object to its scope. Instead, she argued that Uber’s request was too late because the deposition could not be completed before the January 21, 2022 fact-discovery cutoff.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that issuing letters rogatory is discretionary and that discovery may cover nonprivileged information relevant to a party’s claim or defense. The court did not weigh the likely evidentiary value of the testimony or predict whether the information would ultimately be obtained.

The court found good cause to permit the deposition after the discovery cutoff. It relied on the time-consuming nature of the letters-rogatory process, which requires cooperation from domestic and foreign governmental entities; Doe’s awareness for months of Uber’s desire to depose Padilla Arias and Uber’s repeated efforts to obtain her cooperation; Doe’s indication that she likely would call Padilla Arias as a trial witness while refusing Uber’s efforts to schedule his deposition cooperatively before trial; and the statement that Doe’s counsel did not represent Padilla Arias and lacked authority to accept a subpoena for him. The court found that the letters-rogatory process was the only legal means available to Uber to seek his deposition.

Ruling

The court vacated the January 27, 2022 hearing because oral argument was unnecessary and granted Uber’s motion for issuance of letters rogatory. The order states that it disposes of Docket No. 148. It addressed discovery only and did not resolve the merits of Doe’s underlying claims.