Nov 25 (Reuters) – As lawsuits continue to pile up against Uber Technologies from passengers who allege they were sexually assaulted by the ridesharing service’s drivers, plaintiffs’ lawyers are pushing for what they see as a quick and easy way to help gather evidence in the sprawling multidistrict litigation.
What if they just open their file cabinets?
Three plaintiffs’ lawyers have sought the court’s blessing to use documents, deposition and hearing testimony already in their possession — material that they acquired in past lawsuits against Uber involving claims ranging from pay violations to wrongful death that’s designated as confidential –in the sexual assault MDL now pending in San Francisco federal court.
In effect, they want the court’s permission to produce documents to themselves.
The unusual requests are the latest in a series of discovery fights that underscore the litigation’s high stakes. In the past 13 months, the MDL has grown from 22 cases at its inception, opens new tab to include more than 1,400 claims by people across the country who say they were sexually assaulted or harassed by Uber drivers.
The plaintiffs allege, opens new tab Uber failed to conduct adequate background checks on its drivers or to implement appropriate safety measures. Asserting negligence, product liability, fraud and misrepresentation, they say the company is vicariously liable for the acts of its drivers, including assault, rape and false imprisonment.
An Uber spokesperson in a statement said that the company cannot comment on pending litigation but is “deeply committed to the safety of all users on the Uber platform.”
In its latest safety report, opens new tab covering the years 2021-2022, Uber said that 99.9% of trips were completed without any type of reported safety incident.
The co-lead plaintiffs’ lawyers — Rachel Abrams of Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane Conway & Wise; Sarah London of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein; and Roopal Luhana of Chaffin Luhana — in a statement said they “are continuing to press ahead to gather the evidence to build our case.”
Just over a year ago, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized the sexual assault cases. In a petition, opens new tab now pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Uber is challenging the move as improper, arguing the cases are too different to group together, and also that Uber’s terms of use bar plaintiffs from seeking an MDL.
In the meantime, the parties have butted heads repeatedly over discovery.
The plaintiffs’ over-arching concern in court filings is that they won’t get the full trove of responsive documents from Uber, either because the company hasn’t retained all the relevant material or is improperly withholding documents by designating them as privileged.
It’s one reason they want permission from the court for co-counsel to share information from past cases otherwise bound by protective orders.
[…]
But Uber, which is represented in the MDL by a small army of lawyers from firms including Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; and Shook, Hardy & Bacon, has called such attempts, opens new tab an improper “end run” around normal discovery procedures. Plaintiffs “must do their own work” and ask Uber directly for the information, defense lawyers say.
They argue there’s no reason for plaintiffs to seek confidential deposition testimony or documents from opposing counsel in other cases “unless the goal is to improperly prevent Uber from having any ability to object or review the discovery for responsiveness.”
So far, U.S. Magistrate Lisa Cisneros has not been persuaded.
In July, she approved the first subpoena allowing plaintiffs’ steering committee member Sara Peters to share information from her prior litigation against Uber.
Peters represented a Jane Doe who alleged she was raped by a former Uber driver who had two separate complaints for sexually assaulting passengers. Peters’ documents concerned the prevalence of sexual assault by Uber drivers, user perception of Uber safety and Uber’s policies for handling reports of sexual assault.
According to the plaintiffs, Uber turned over limited and incomplete material from the case, omitting, for example, deposition transcripts.
In denying Uber’s motion to quash the subpoena, Cisneros wrote, opens new tab that the sought-after material involved testimony from Uber employees on “highly relevant topics.”
Nothing in the protective order “precludes any other court from ordering production” of the documents in another litigation, she wrote. The plaintiffs “are not required to exhaust party discovery before seeking discovery from nonparties.”
Stay tuned. The first bellwether trials before Senior U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer could begin later next year.
Full Story: Reuters Nov 25 2024
