The Court recently issued an Order setting protocols for production of hyperlinked policy- related documents.

Uber proposes that the Special Master should determine whether an inspection is necessary at all, and that if it is, it should be a narrowly constrained tutorial conducted at defense counsel’s office.

The Court concludes that the Special Master is best situated to set the terms of an inspection she will be responsible for overseeing, after sufficient time to assess the effectiveness of the document production protocols the Court previously ordered.

If Plaintiffs continue to believe an inspection is necessary, they may file a motion directed to the Special Master on April 18, 2025.

The Court declines to constrain Judge Northern District of California United States District Court Jones’s discretion as to the specific format of an inspection of hyperlinked policy-related documents suitable to address any issues or gaps that remain after the document production protocols have been tested.

The standards governing privilege review for this multi-district litigation have been set forth in multiple orders of Magistrate Judge Cisneros.

Pursuant to Master Order No. 2, Uber has produced 127 documents for which the privilege designations have been challenged by plaintiffs for in camera review.

The parties briefed their respective positions on these challenges, and Uber provided two declarations in support of its privilege claims.

The parties shall meet and confer within three days after plaintiffs provide their challenges to Uber.

Any outstanding challenges may be submitted to the Master for review within two days of the meet and confer process and Uber shall produce the associated documents within the same time period.

None of the above joint letters should be taken as opportunities to argue for reconsideration of this Order on any basis other than the narrow grounds addressed above.

Lisa J. Cisneros Judge: Courtroom: G – 15th Floor

Pursuant to Dkt. No. 2443, Plaintiffs and Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, and Rasier-CA, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) (jointly, “the parties”), respectfully submit this Joint Stipulation regarding production of new material responsive to TAR process.

Production of Documents after TAR Process With respect to the documents which the Parties now agree are responsive after the Court’s order at Dkt. No. 2443, 1.

Defendants will substantially complete production of all documents deemed responsive as a result of agreements made by the Parties during the TAR negotiations1 (to the extent these documents have not already been produced pursuant to Dkt. 2009-1) as well as documents deemed responsive by the Court’s order at Dkt. No. 2443, to the extent Defendants do not assert privilege over those documents or otherwise assert those documents are protected from disclosure, by April 11, 2024.

These documents will be produced to Plaintiffs pursuant to Dkt. No. 524, and all subsequent orders and/or stipulations agreed to by the Parties related to the production of ESI.

Since the passage of that date, the Court has redoubled efforts to ensure completion of document discovery, and directed the parties to begin their depositions.

But Uber objected to the production of all hyperlinked documents as likely to snowball to an unmanageable scope, id. at 37:13–24, and the Court indicated that the issue would be resolved in a written order, rather than ruling from the bench, id. at 41:6–10.

Emphasizing the Court’s use of the word “whether” in requiring Uber to explain its criteria for production of hyperlinked documents, Uber asserts that it complied with the January 23, 2025 minute order by explaining in a letter to Plaintiffs that it essentially disregarded hyperlinks in its policies because it determined that manual review of those links would be unduly burdensome, and instead conducted a search based on subject matter for relevant operational guidelines.

The Court has considered Uber’s objections to an inspection, Dkt. No. 2477 at 6–8, and nevertheless finds such relief warranted under the circumstances of the case, given the vital importance of understanding Uber’s safety-related policies and procedures, and the general conditions set forth above.

The parties may negotiate and stipulate to an alternative approach whereby the inspection is not necessary to ensure a complete response to Plaintiffs’ requests for discovery of Uber’s policy documents.