In a significant development in the growing multidistrict litigation (MDL) against Uber Technologies, lawyers representing victims of sexual assault by Uber drivers are pushing for expedited access to critical evidence from previous lawsuits. The plaintiffs’ legal teams argue that Uber’s alleged failures to provide sufficient background checks and safety measures for its drivers have led to numerous assaults, and they seek court approval to utilize existing evidence in their possession to strengthen the ongoing case.
The latest legal maneuver in the complex case involves a request by three lead plaintiffs’ attorneys to use confidential documents and testimonies from past litigation against Uber. These documents, gathered during prior lawsuits related to issues such as pay violations and wrongful death, are argued to be crucial in proving the claims of sexual assault against Uber drivers in the current MDL, which is being heard in San Francisco federal court.
By seeking permission to use this material, including depositions and confidential testimony, plaintiffs’ attorneys aim to circumvent delays in Uber’s discovery process. The plaintiffs have voiced concerns that Uber has either not preserved critical evidence or is intentionally withholding documents by labeling them as privileged.
This multidistrict litigation, which began with just 22 cases, has now ballooned to more than 1,400 claims nationwide. Plaintiffs allege that Uber’s failure to conduct proper background checks and to implement sufficient safety protocols contributed to numerous cases of assault, including rape and false imprisonment. They assert that Uber is vicariously liable for the actions of its drivers, who are accused of perpetrating these crimes against passengers.
Uber, for its part, has maintained its commitment to safety, claiming in its latest safety report that 99.9% of trips were completed without incident. However, the legal battle continues to intensify as more survivors come forward with allegations against the ridesharing giant.
In a motion filed earlier this month, Bret Stanley, a member of the plaintiffs’ steering committee, requested permission to use material from previous lawsuits in which he was involved, including driver classification and wage cases. Stanley contends that these documents could provide essential insight into how Uber manages and controls its drivers, helping to “cross-check the completeness” of information Uber has provided.
Similarly, Corrie Yackulic, who previously represented the family of a driver killed in a carjacking, has access to safety data that could shed light on Uber’s handling of safety protocols. She too is seeking permission to share this information in the current case.
One notable aspect of the request is that the documents are already in the possession of the plaintiffs’ legal team, meaning they would incur no additional costs to retrieve them. This contrasts sharply with the typical discovery process, where plaintiffs must rely on Uber to provide documents, often facing delays or incomplete responses.
However, Uber’s defense team, including attorneys from Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, has objected to these requests. They argue that plaintiffs should not bypass traditional discovery procedures and should instead request these documents directly from Uber. According to Uber’s lawyers, allowing plaintiffs to use confidential materials from other lawsuits would prevent the company from objecting to the relevance or completeness of the evidence before it is shared.
So far, U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa Cisneros has sided with the plaintiffs in allowing the use of past documents in certain cases. In a ruling this July, she approved a subpoena allowing Sara Peters, another member of the plaintiffs’ steering committee, to share documents from a prior case involving a rape allegation against an Uber driver. These documents included evidence of Uber’s policies regarding sexual assault, as well as data on the frequency of such incidents.
Despite Uber’s objections, Judge Cisneros determined that the material requested was “highly relevant” to the ongoing case and could provide valuable insights into Uber’s internal operations and safety practices. “Nothing in the protective order precludes any other court from ordering production of these documents,” she wrote, emphasizing that plaintiffs are not required to exhaust party discovery before seeking material from nonparties.
The ongoing MDL against Uber has drawn widespread attention to issues of safety and accountability in the ridesharing industry. As more survivors of sexual assault come forward, the stakes of this case continue to rise. Plaintiffs’ lawyers argue that their efforts to gather evidence quickly and effectively are critical not only to securing justice for victims but also to holding Uber accountable for its role in enabling such incidents through its platform.
The case is far from over, and legal experts are closely watching its progress, as it could have major implications for future cases involving large corporations and their responsibility for the actions of third-party contractors or employees.
READ MORE: