Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 22, 2023

R.T. v. Uber Technologies Inc.

Judge
Charles Breyer
Docket
3:23-cv-04301
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureTort
In one sentence

In R.T. v. Uber Technologies Inc., Judge Breyer granted the plaintiffs’ motions to proceed anonymously.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs in the member cases listed in the appendix, as well as the defendants and the public whose interests the court considered.

What happened

In R.T. v. Uber Technologies Inc., plaintiffs in several related cases asked to keep their identities private. The defendants did not oppose the requests.

The court found that the plaintiffs’ need for anonymity outweighed possible harm to the defendants and the public’s interest in knowing their identities.

The court granted the motions listed in the order’s appendix. Judge Breyer signed the order on November 22, 2023.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
R.T. v. Uber Technologies Inc. · No. 3:23-cv-04301
Judge
Charles Breyer
Date
Nov. 22, 2023

Background

The order concerns member cases in the multidistrict litigation captioned “In re: Uber Technologies, Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation.” The plaintiffs in the cases listed in the appendix asked for permission to proceed anonymously, meaning they could keep their identities undisclosed in the litigation. The defendants filed no opposition.

Court’s analysis

The court weighed the plaintiffs’ need to proceed anonymously against potential prejudice to the defendants and the public’s interest in knowing the parties’ identities. It found that the plaintiffs’ need for anonymity outweighed those competing interests.

Ruling

The court granted the motions for leave to proceed anonymously listed in the appendix. Charles R. Breyer, United States District Judge, entered the order on November 22, 2023.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.