Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
This order was entered in MDL No. 3084, the multidistrict litigation captioned In re Uber Technologies, Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation, in the Northern District of California. Uber moved (Dkt. 5520) for findings of civil contempt and daily monetary sanctions against five plaintiffs who are alleged to have submitted non-bona fide receipts of their Uber rides. The order does not decide whether the receipts were genuine; the contempt findings rest solely on disobedience of the court's discovery orders.
Jane Doe LS 333 and Jane Doe LS 397 were ordered in three separate orders, dated September 9, September 22, and November 29, 2025, to provide responsive documents and appear for depositions. When they did neither, the court dismissed their cases with prejudice (Dkt. 5216), then ordered them to produce the documents or a sworn declaration and to sit for deposition, warning that noncompliance would bring a contempt finding (Dkt. 5217). They again failed to comply. J.H., R.L., and A.E. were ordered to respond in writing to an order to show cause why their claims should not be dismissed and to appear for deposition (Dkt. 4440). They did not, and a further order warned of contempt (Dkt. 5218). They again failed to appear. J.H. voluntarily dismissed her case on December 1, 2025, and A.E.'s case was dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with Amended Pretrial Order No. 10. The fifth plaintiff appears as R.L. in the caption but as R.H. in the order's text; her case remained pending. Plaintiffs opposed on the grounds that the dismissed cases made contempt inappropriate, that Fifth Amendment concerns were implicated, and that they had been unresponsive to their own counsel.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Charles R. Breyer granted the motion. Civil contempt, the court explained, is disobedience of a specific and definite court order through failure to take all reasonable steps within the party's power to comply. The court found clear and convincing evidence that the plaintiffs were ordered to appear for depositions and to produce documents or a declaration, and did not. It rejected each defense. A court may adjudicate contempt and impose a sanction even after the action in which the contempt arose has ended, citing Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. Potential Fifth Amendment implications do not excuse failing to appear in a civil matter, citing Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision. And plaintiffs' unresponsiveness to counsel does not absolve them where counsel notified them of their obligations.
The court found all five plaintiffs in contempt. It converted A.E.'s dismissal without prejudice and J.H.'s voluntary dismissal into dismissals with prejudice, and dismissed R.H.'s pending case with prejudice. It imposed a one-time $1,000 monetary sanction on Jane Doe LS 333, Jane Doe LS 397, R.H., and A.E., rather than the daily sanctions Uber had requested; the sanction does not apply to J.H. Any plaintiff who arranges and completes her deposition on or before December 15, 2026 will mitigate the sanction, though the order does not say by how much. Because A.E.'s former counsel, Reich & Binstock LLP, stated that it released her as a client after her dismissal, the court directed that firm to serve her with a copy of the order.
Key Takeaways
- A court may adjudicate civil contempt and sanction a party even after the underlying action has been dismissed.
- Here, a dismissal without prejudice and a voluntary dismissal were converted into dismissals with prejudice as contempt sanctions.
- Potential Fifth Amendment concerns do not excuse failing to appear for a deposition in a civil case, according to this order.
- A plaintiff's failure to communicate with her lawyer does not excuse noncompliance when counsel has notified her of the court's orders.
- The one-time sanction can be mitigated by completing a deposition by December 15, 2026.
Why It Matters
This is an unreported district court order in an MDL, so it carries no precedential weight beyond these cases; it applies settled contempt authority to plaintiffs who ignored repeated discovery orders. Its practical lesson is that dismissing a case, even voluntarily, does not end the court's power to enforce earlier orders, and that the court may use that power to make dismissals final.
Much remains unexplained. The order does not decide whether the receipts were non-bona fide, does not analyze whether any plaintiff could have invoked the Fifth Amendment question by question, and does not quantify the mitigation available. Whether any plaintiff completes a deposition by December 15, 2026 remains open.