Doe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 JANE DOE, Case No. 19-cv-03310-JSC

Plaintiff,

ORDER RE: UBER’S MOTION TO

v. RETAIN CONFIDENTIALITY

DESIGNATIONS

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 177 Defendants.

12 Jane Doe brings a negligence claim against Uber and its wholly owned subsidiaries Rasier, LLC and Rasier CA, LLC (collectively “Uber”) arising from an assault by a former Uber driver posing as a current Uber driver. In accordance with the parties’ stipulated protective order, Uber has designated certain documents and testimony produced in discovery as confidential. (Dkt. No. 75.) Plaintiff has challenged Uber’s confidentiality designations for the deposition transcript of Abbie Ding; as a result, Uber moves to maintain the confidentiality designations as required by Section 6.3 of the protective order. (Dkt. No. 177-4.) After carefully considering the parties’ briefs and the relevant legal authority, the Court concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, see…