In re: Uber Technologies, Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation
3:23-md-03084-CRB
| N.D. Cal. | Jan 29, 2025Background
- This case consolidates multiple actions alleging sexual assault of passengers by Uber drivers and addresses the scope of privilege in Uber’s document production.
- Plaintiffs and Uber disputed whether certain documents withheld or redacted by Uber were protected by attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, under California law.
- The court previously set processes by which the parties would jointly identify sample privilege log entries for judicial review (i.e., by joint letter, sampling from discovery tranches).
- Uber conceded during the process that numerous documents were over-designated as privileged and not all described accurately in the privilege log; this order reviews further contested samples.
- Plaintiffs also sought sanctions for Uber’s alleged over-designation and deficiencies in privilege logs.
- The court also addressed minor seal and procedural issues related to the filings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether operational documents/policies, though informed by legal advice, are privileged | Policies are not privileged just because informed by legal advice | Privilege applies if policy was developed based on legal guidance | Not privileged unless they specifically convey legal advice; mere genesis in legal advice is insufficient |
| Whether communications among non-lawyers relaying legal conclusions are privileged | Mere internal business communications without lawyer input are not privileged | Relaying counsel’s advice for internal implementation is privileged | Privileged only if relaying advice necessary to effectuate attorney consultation |
| Sufficiency of privilege log/in camera evidence to support privilege assertion | Uber logs often inaccurate; lack of evidence to support privilege | Some privilege can be inferred from context or current employee declarations | Privilege must be supported by credible, specific evidence; unsupported claims denied |
| Attorney-client privilege where attorney is only “cc’d” or acts as a business agent | If lawyer’s role is incidental or business-oriented, privilege does not apply | Including attorney (“cc”) or acting in operational role still invokes privilege | Attorney must provide legal, not business, advice, and “cc” alone does not suffice |
| Blanket sanctions/waiver for overbroad assertions | All claims should be deemed waived; request for Rule 37 sanctions | Plaintiffs' request is improper (untimely/overbroad) | Sanctions denied; concern over over-designations, but not grounds for waiver here |
Key Cases Cited
- Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Ct., 47 Cal. 4th 725 (Cal. 2009) (burden and presumption framework for attorney-client privilege)
- Clark v. Superior Ct., 196 Cal. App. 4th 37 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (dominant purpose test for privilege in corporate settings)
- Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Superior Ct., 155 Cal. App. 4th 1485 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (limits of corporate attorney-client privilege, intermediary communications, and business agent exception)
- Chi. Title Ins. Co. v. Superior Ct., 174 Cal. App. 3d 1142 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (routine business communications not privileged solely by attorney’s inclusion)
- L.A. Cty. Bd. of Supervisors v. Superior Ct., 2 Cal. 5th 282 (Cal. 2016) (communication must be for the purpose of legal consultation to be privileged)