From the outset, we have emphasized that the cornerstone of every rideshare sexual assault lawsuit lies in the documentation maintained by these companies. It’s no surprise, then, that legal teams remain in dispute over the extent of discovery concerning Uber’s marketing strategies—particularly its safety-related promotions.

In a joint status report submitted on Wednesday, plaintiffs highlighted that Uber’s extensive marketing campaigns, which present the platform as a safe transportation choice, are fundamental to both their fraud and non-fraud claims. These claims touch on key legal issues such as duty, foreseeability, and punitive damages. Plaintiffs argue that only Uber holds crucial records detailing the reach and impact of its marketing efforts, which are necessary to support their allegations.

Uber, however, continues to resist these demands. The company asserts that fraud-related claims were already dismissed due to insufficient plaintiff-specific allegations regarding marketing reliance. The defense contends that general promotional materials are irrelevant unless a plaintiff can prove they personally saw and relied on specific advertisements. While Uber has agreed to provide a sample communications log for discussion, it argues that much of the broader discovery requests “exceed the boundaries of relevance.”

Several key disputes remain unresolved, including:

• Bloc & Flow Reporting: Uber is still assessing whether its internal marketing system tracks email engagement and whether such reports can be provided.
• Communication Logs: Plaintiffs seek detailed records of marketing messages sent to individual bellwether plaintiffs, but Uber asserts that such records do not exist in the requested format.
• Marketing Document Declaration: Plaintiffs request a sworn statement detailing Uber’s past and present marketing archives, similar to previous court-ordered declarations regarding policy disclosures.