Attorney in Uber Assault Cases Fined $30,000 for Data Misuse (2)

An attorney for passengers suing Uber Technologies Inc. over alleged sexual assaults by its drivers must pay the company for disclosing in other litigation information designated as confidential in other litigation, a federal judge said.

Bret Stanley owes Uber $30,000 for violating a protective order by misusing documents filed in this multidistrict litigation for an unrelated car accident case he is litigating, the US District Court for the Northern District of California said Tuesday.

Uber, however, wasn’t entitled to the full $168,573 it requested because it didn’t show any significant actual or likely harm as a result of the material’s disclosure, Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros said.

“Stanley’s view of the Protective Order would let attorneys determine for themselves what portions of an opponent’s confidential documents can and cannot be disclosed to advance a lawsuit that is not part of this MDL,” Cisneros said. “That interpretation is impermissible and unreasonable, and some sanction is warranted,” she said.

Stanley, who is at the law firm Johnson Law Group, said in a statement that it is unfortunate that Uber “has continually fought to avoid court-ordered production of important and relevant documents” pertaining to other Uber-related cases.

“I am sorry that the current situation, in which I intended only to streamline discovery in other cases against Uber, has nevertheless resulted in further, unnecessary delays,” Stanley said.

He said he hopes to work amicably with Uber’s counsel to amend the protective order to help reduce unnecessary delays.

The rideshare company faces thousands of lawsuits consolidated in California federal court that allege Uber failed to prevent drivers from sexually assaulting passengers. Uber was hit with an $8.5 million jury verdict in the first bellwether trial earlier this month involving a woman who claimed she was raped by her driver during a 2023 ride in Arizona. Over a dozen additional bellwether trials are scheduled across the country.

Cisneros also ordered Stanley to pay additional attorneys’ fees to Uber in an amount to be determined, based on his search of MDL records to help him litigate an unrelated car accident case in Texas.

At a Jan. 20 hearing, Stanley didn’t dispute that he had searched the record of Uber documents and data in the sexual assaults case and found information that was relevant to his other case.

Cisneros’ order rejected Stanley’s arguments that his violation of the protective order was justified because Uber was obstructing documents he needed for his other case.

Stanley’s separate car accident case involved a crash with an Uber Eats delivery person who was using a car even though he had only been approved to deliver food by bicycle. Stanley discovered app data that recorded the delivery person’s speed in the multidistrict litigation document repository.

Cisneros also noted that Uber appeared to have “sandbagged its request for sanctions” by failing to bring “or at least foreshadow” its motion until more than five months after learning of Stanley’s violation.

The case is In re Uber Techs., Inc., Passenger Assault Litig., N.D. Cal., No. 23-md-3084, 2/17/26.