Uber Faces Discovery Abuse Claims in Suit by Rider Who Was Raped

Uber’s withholding of discovery documents about sexual assault data and policies implemented to deter attacks on riders has opened the company to punitive damages in a case brought by a Florida rider who was raped by her driver.

An Uber driver raped a 20-year-old woman in 2021 after he picked her up outside a Tampa nightclub.

For years the woman’s attorneys have demanded records and documents about the company’s tracking and handling of assault allegations. The rideshare giant said those records weren’t germane or didn’t exist—until the New York Times reported in August that the company did have that data and had given at least some of it to attorneys in separate litigation in California. Now Florida lawyers are trying to leverage that disparity into sanctions.

“This already was a case about egregious and systemic corporate negligence that led to the brutal rape of a 20-year-old woman by an Uber driver—an eight-time convicted felon with a known history of violent crimes against women,” attorneys for the plaintiff, who filed as Jane Doe, wrote in a brief demanding sanctions against Uber’s lawyers. “But unfortunately, it’s worse: this is also a case about Uber willfully obstructing the discovery process, hoping to run out the clock and prevent Jane Doe from learning of Uber’s intentional misconduct or gross negligence.”

As this lawsuit in Hillsborough County, Fla., marches toward trial, a local judge must weigh whether Uber has committed fraud on the court, whether its lawyers should be sanctioned for the second time since June, and whether the company could face punitive damages for misconduct.

“The Motion is based on hearsay, generalized allegations, and business decisions with which Plaintiff disagrees—not on competent, substantial evidence of intentional misconduct or gross negligence as defined by Florida law,” the company said in a response brief filed by Bowman & Brooke LLP, which Uber dropped from the case shortly thereafter. Uber hired Older, Lundy, Koch & Martino in mid-September.

Uber declined to respond to questions about why data was withheld here, and whether Uber’s local counsel or corporate lawyers were to blame.

Data Disclosure

While the Florida case centers on how much Uber should be responsible for the harm its drivers can cause and how closely the company should review driver backgrounds, it has morphed into a battle over how it is defending itself in court. Doe’s attorneys say hiding the ball in discovery has become a pattern.

On a night of revelry in 2021 leading up to her 21st birthday, the plaintiff got drunk with her friends and was separated from them at the nightclub. A Good Samaritan ordered her an Uber ride back to her hotel, which should have taken 10 minutes. Instead, around 10 p.m. the driver, Anthony Oliveras-Rivera, took her a half-hour away, ended the ride in the app, and raped her in the backseat of his car.

After returning her to the hotel at 2 a.m., Oliveras-Rivera—who was convicted of felony robbery in 2002—logged back into the app and started accepting more rides. He pled guilty in 2023 to three felony counts of sexual battery, and is scheduled for release from state prison in 2032.

Thousands of lawsuits against Uber have amassed in state and federal court in California where Uber won a landmark no-verdict jury decision on Sept. 30. In those multi-district proceedings Uber produced data under seal that from 2017-2022 the company received reports of sexual offenses on average once every eight minutes.

Doe’s legal team said Uber’s failure to divulge that data supports their broader indictment of the company.

“It used predictive computerized information to ID circumstances where sexual assaults were likely to occur and it concealed that information from passengers,” Jack Scarola, Jane Doe’s attorney and vice president of Searcy Denney, said in a hearing alerting the court to the New York Times report.

In an August hearing Karl Worsham, a Perkins Coie lawyer representing Uber in Florida, acknowledged that while perhaps there was one document that should have been turned over regarding assault reports, it would have been provided if the Florida case was part of the California multi-district litigation.

Worsham argued the company shouldn’t be liable for the actions of an independent contractor with a two-decade-old criminal record, saying they “can’t be expected to know that a violent crime 20 years ago was indicative of a different violent crime 20 years later.”

Circuit Court Judge Alissa Ellison has ruled that’s a question for the jury, denying Uber’s request to dismiss the case entirely and pushing to trial claims over whether Uber was negligent in hiring Oliveras-Rivera.

Sanctions, Punitive Damages

A lack of disclosure in the Florida case led to motions to compel and depositions of company records experts.

Uber contended that it had no incident reports about Oliveras-Rivera. But in a December 2024 deposition, an Uber executive said the company generated incident reports and disclosed the existence of sign-up agreements Oliveras-Rivera signed that weren’t yet provided to the victim’s lawyers. Uber also dragged its feet when producing agreements with its third-party background check supplier Checkr, withholding information on what offenses can disqualify a driver.

For these reasons the trial judge sanctioned Uber in June.

The plaintiff argues the company committed fraud on the court and could qualify for millions in punitive damages—a high bar in Florida, where tort reform has made punitive damages claims less common and appealable.

The case is scheduled for mediation on Oct. 10, preceding an Oct. 30 hearing to address Doe’s motion to amend her complaint so she can bring punitive damages.

Doe’s legal team wants the court to set a trial date before the end of 2025.

“After a years-long battle to uncover the truth, we are eager to present our case to a jury,” said Andrea A. Lewis, a shareholder at Searcy Denney. “The evidence speaks for itself.”

The case is: Doe v. Uber Tech., Inc., Fla. Cir. Ct., No. 23-CA-006624, hearing on punitive damages scheduled 10/30/25.