Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Background

Uber moved for issuance of letters rogatory to Mexico’s Central Authority 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 witness testimony. Uber sought depositions of Ms. Paola Alvarez, Mr. Adan Martinez, and Ms. Lourdes Coss y Leon, whom the opinion identifies as citizens of Mexico. Alvarez and Martinez were described as friends of Plaintiff, and Coss y Leon as Plaintiff’s sister.

Uber sought testimony about information Plaintiff had shared with the witnesses concerning the August 14, 2018 incident, including her failure to identify the correct vehicle; Plaintiff’s habits, activities, mood, phobias, appetite, energy level, and relationships since the incident; and, from Coss y Leon, Plaintiff’s history of ordering Ubers through her and using Uber before the incident. Uber argued that this testimony was relevant to Plaintiff’s factual allegations and claimed damages.

Parties’ Positions

Plaintiff did not dispute that the testimony was relevant and did not object to the scope of the requested testimony. Plaintiff’s objection was that Uber’s request came after the fact-discovery cutoff. The court explained that the local rule defines that cutoff as the date by which written-discovery responses must be due and depositions must be completed, but permits depositions afterward when the court finds good cause.

Uber argued that it needed Plaintiff’s deposition testimony before deciding whether to spend the time and money required to use the letter-rogatory process. Uber also argued that Plaintiff’s deposition had been delayed at Plaintiff’s request until after the fact-discovery cutoff, that the foreign deposition process requires cooperation from domestic and foreign governmental entities, and that Plaintiff’s counsel did not represent the witnesses or have authority to accept subpoenas for them.

Court’s Analysis

The court stated that it has the inherent power to issue letters rogatory and that issuing them is discretionary. In exercising that discretion, the court generally does not weigh the evidence sought or predict whether it will ultimately be obtained. Instead, it applies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 28(b) together with the discovery limits in Rule 26(b), which permits discovery of nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense.

The court found no dispute that the requested testimony was relevant. It also found that the circumstances constituted good cause for taking the depositions after the fact-discovery cutoff. The court relied on the delayed timing of Plaintiff’s deposition, the time-consuming nature of obtaining testimony through letters rogatory, and the lack of another stated legal means for Uber to obtain these witnesses’ depositions.

Disposition

The court vacated the March 3, 2022 hearing and granted Uber’s amended motion for issuance of letters rogatory. It found good cause for Uber to take Alvarez’s, Martinez’s, and Coss y Leon’s depositions after the fact-discovery cutoff. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 164 and 179.