U.S. District Court (California) Denies Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Documents in a Case Involving Uber

BVLaw
Court Case Digests
February 16, 2024

Access the Full Article

This article is available with a subscription to any of these products:
Already a subscriber?  Login
This article is also available for purchase. (985 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
4215 Courier Services Except by Air, 4899 Communications Services, NEC
485310 Taxi and Ridesharing Services, 492110 Couriers and Express Delivery Services
securities litigation
impairment, discovery, work-product doctrine
Boston Ret. Sys. v. Uber Techs., Inc.
2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27976; 2024 WL 665647
US
Federal Court
California
United States District Court
Donna M. Ryu

Summary

The plaintiffs filed a motion to compel production of 28 unredacted documents PricewaterhouseCoopers produced. The defendant, Uber Technologies Inc., asserted that the work product doctrine shielded the redacted portions of the documents from discovery. The court agreed and denied the plaintiffs’ motion to compel.

See Also

Boston Ret. Sys. v. Uber Techs., Inc.

Full Text of Court Cases
February 16, 2024

The plaintiffs filed a motion to compel production of 28 unredacted documents PricewaterhouseCoopers produced. The defendant, Uber Technologies Inc., asserted that the work product doctrine shielded the redacted portions of the documents from discovery. The court agreed and denied the plaintiffs’ motion to compel.