In re Uber Techs., Inc. Passenger Sexual Assault Litig.
Citation:Case No. 23-md-03084 (N.D. Cal. 2025)
Summary:Magistrate Judge Cisneros established standards for privilege review in a multi-district litigation involving Uber. After Uber produced 160 documents for in camera review, the Master determined that 152 were privileged either in whole or in part, and six were not privileged. The court emphasized the need for accurate and appropriate redactions of privileged material in the produced documents.
Court:United States District Court, N.D. California
Date decided:
Judge:Jones, Barbara S.
IN RE: UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., PASSENGER SEXUAL ASSAULT LITIGATION This Document Relates to: ALL ACTIONS Case No. 23-md-03084-CRB (LJC) United States District Court, N.D. California Filed May 08, 2025 Jones, Barbara S., Special Master REPORT OF PRIVILEGE DETERMINATIONS The standards governing privilege review for this multi-district litigation have been set forth in multiple orders of Magistrate Judge Cisneros. See Dkts. 1908, 2005, 2168. Pursuant to Master Order No. 3, Uber produced 160 documents associated with custodians Mat Henley, Danielle Sheridan, Frank Chang, Bushara Faiz, and Sachin Kansal for in camera review. The Master determined that 150 of the documents were privileged in whole or in part and eight were not privileged. The Master also ordered Uber to provide additional information regarding two of the documents. Following the submission of additional information and further in camera review, the Master determined that 152 of the documents associated with custodians Mat Henley, Danielle Sheridan, Frank Chang, Bushara Faiz, and Sachin Kansal are privileged in whole or in part and six are not privileged. The privilege claims for two documents were withdrawn in part by Uber and there were no further challenges by plaintiffs.[1] Footnotes [1] More specifically, of the 160 documents submitted to the Master, 77 documents were privileged in whole, 65 documents contained appropriate redactions of privileged material by Uber, 10 documents were ordered to be re-produced with redactions or revised redactions, six documents were not privileged, and two documents were re-produced by Uber with revised designations.