Doe
Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 JANE DOE, Case No. 19-cv-03310-JSC
Plaintiff,
ORDER RE: UBER’S MOTION TO
v. MAINTAIN CONFIDENTIALITY
DESIGNATIONS
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 113 Defendants.
13 Jane Doe brings a negligence claim against Uber and its wholly owned subsidiaries Rasier, LLC and Rasier CA, LLC (collectively “Uber”) after she was assaulted by a former Uber driver posing as a current Uber driver. In accordance with the parties’ stipulated protective order, Uber has designated documents and testimony produced in discovery as confidential. (Dkt. No. 75.) Plaintiff challenges Uber’s confidentiality designations for three deposition transcripts and Uber moves to maintain the confidentiality designation as required by Section 6.3 of the protective order. (Dkt. No. 113.) After carefully considering the parties’ briefs and the relevant legal authority, the Court concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, see Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and 22 …