Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Background

Uber took depositions of Jane Doe and Doe’s boyfriend on February 9 and 10, 2022. Uber argued that Doe’s lawyer impeded the depositions through improper objections and instructions not to answer, and asked the court to compel further depositions of both witnesses.

Court’s Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(c)(2) allows a lawyer to instruct a witness not to answer only when necessary to preserve a privilege, enforce a court-ordered limitation, or present a motion to stop a deposition because of serious misconduct. Objections must be concise, nonargumentative, and nonsuggestive.

The court applied California law to the attorney-client privilege dispute. It found that Doe had not shown that the questions her lawyer blocked sought protected communications. Most of the questions sought factual information, such as why Doe sued Uber, when she learned information about the driver’s app, what she sought from the lawsuit, and when she signed a retainer agreement. The court held that factual information is not protected merely because it may relate to legal advice.

The court also found improper the instructions not to answer based on relevance or harassment. It stated that those concerns may support ending a deposition in limited circumstances, but do not allow a witness simply to refuse to answer. The court separately found that Uber’s lawyer improperly instructed Doe that she did not have to use an interpreter; Doe’s comfort with English and preference for an interpreter were matters for Doe, her lawyer, or the court.

As to Doe’s boyfriend, the court found improper instructions not to answer questions about when his relationship with counsel began, whether he acted as Doe’s translator, and conversations he had with counsel outside Doe’s presence. The court also found that questions about whether he had ever been sued and the growth rate of the company he ran with Doe did not establish a privacy right that justified refusing to answer. The court likewise found that harassment was not a proper basis for refusing those answers.

Ruling and Remedy

Judge Corley granted Uber’s motions to compel. The request to reopen the depositions was granted in part. Doe must attend another six-hour, in-person deposition, and her boyfriend must attend another 1.5-hour deposition limited to the company he runs with Doe, his prior involvement with lawsuits, and his communications with Doe’s counsel and related role. The depositions were ordered to take place at the courthouse so the court could address any further issues.

The court preserved objections to the form of questions, but allowed only legally proper instructions not to answer. It also ordered that Doe could not leave the room while a question was pending. Uber’s request for monetary sanctions was not resolved in this order: Uber was ordered to submit a detailed statement identifying the amount and supporting documents, Doe could respond, and the court would then consider the request.