Subscribe to this blog's feed

Categories

Archives

About

Blog powered by Typepad

Google

  • Google
    Google

    WWW
    insuranceclaimsbadfaith.typepad.com

Disclaimer

  • REMINDER: THE CONTENTS OF THIS BLOG DO NOT MAKE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIP. ALWAYS CONSULT THE CASES AND LAWS OF EACH PARTICULAR JURISDICTION AND AN ATTORNEY IN AND FAMILIAR WITH THE PARTICULAR JURISDICTION AND ITS LAWS, WHENEVER YOU TRY TO ADDRESS OR RESOLVE ANY LEGAL QUESTION.
    The information provided on this site is informational, only. We cannot represent, guarantee or warrant that the information contained in this site is appropriate for the usage of any particular reader. We are independent of cross links and do not warrant their accuracy or applicability. We are located in Florida and comply with all ethical rules of the Florida Bar. Some States may require the wording "This is an advertisement" or other words or information of this nature. Reading email or Comments, or replying to email or Comments, or accepting telephone calls or returning telephone calls shall not be considered legal advice. We require that all agreements for professional services be in writing and signed by Mr. Wall, the Firm and the client, whether for Legal Services, Consulting Services, or Expert Witness.

« PARTIES STIPULATE "ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY," MAGISTRATE JUDGE FINALLY SAYS "NO." | Main | SPEAK, MR. BARR, SPEAK. »

June 13, 2019

UBER RUN OVER BY ITS OWN STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER.

The City Attorney of San Francisco started an investigation which concerned Uber.  The City Attorney issued administrative subpoenas as the City Attorney was authorized by California law to do.

The administrative subpoenas required Uber to provide reports and data that Uber had previously submitted to the California Public Utility Commission.

Uber's response to the subpoenas was less than "substantial compliance," which triggered a lawsuit by the City Attorney.  The City Attorney requested a court to enforce the administrative subpoenas.

Early in the lawsuit, Uber and the City Attorney entered into a Stipulated Protective Order.  In it, Uber stipulated that its confidentiality interests were fully protected by the Order.

Nonetheless they resisted.

The appellate court affirmed.  "It is Uber's burden to demonstrate that the protective order is inadequate to protect its privacy interests, a burden that Uber fails to meet."  City and County of San Francisco v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. A153205, 2019 WL 2436750, *10 (Cal. 1st DCA May 17, 2019).

They were for it until they were against it.  The Stipulated Protective Order was great until it wasn't.  That doesn't work in court very often.  It did not work here, that's certain.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

Posted by on June 13, 2019 at 05:49 AM in Secrecy, Stipulated Protective Orders |

Tags: #administrative subpoenas, #California, #California First District Court of Appeal, #California Public Utilities Commission, #City Attorney of San Francisco, #confidential, #Dennis J. Herrera, #disclosure, #evidence, #lawsuit, #private, #public interest, #San Francisco, #secrecy, #stipulated protective orders, #Uber, #Uber Technologies

Comments

The comments to this entry are closed.