Allison M. Brown, P.C.

A special master has said experts for the tens of thousands of women whose suits in New Jersey federal court allege that Johnson & Johnson talc products caused their ovarian cancer can testify at trial about the causal connection between their disease and use of the products. U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson said in a 685-page report Tuesday that the experts for the plaintiffs should be allowed to testify about the link between talcum powder use and ovarian cancer. She said the experts used reliable methods to reach their opinions that there is a "statistically significant" association between using talcum powder in the genital area and ovarian cancer. Judge Wolfson, now retired, had previously issued a ruling in 2020 that turned down J&J's previous attempt to bar all of the plaintiffs' experts from testifying that J&J's baby powder contains asbestos and that talc can cause ovarian cancer. A year after her ruling, J&J started a multiyear effort at a so-called Texas two-step bankruptcy for its talc unit. Three attempts to do so were rejected by the courts, including in March when a Texas bankruptcy judge rejected its effort through Chapter 11 to settle thousands of claims and threw out a roughly $9 billion bankruptcy deal over problems with the company's voting procedures and third-party releases. Since then, J&J said it would return to the courtroom to resolve the talc cases and forgo more bankruptcy efforts. In the intervening years since Judge Wolfson's initial order, there have also been updates to the federal rules for expert testimony, as well as the publication of epidemiological studies on talc and ovarian cancer. But those developments didn't alter her findings from 2020, Judge Wolfson said. Johnson & Johnson developed baby powder using the mineral talc and started selling it in the United States in 1894. The ingredients were reformulated in 2020 in the United States, and in 2023 for international markets, replacing talc as the main ingredient with cornstarch powder. "Indeed, there have been no seismic shifts in the scientific landscape that would warrant reconsideration of my ruling here," Judge Wolfson said. "In fact, the majority of additional studies support the association between talc and ovarian cancer, without any new studies concluding that no causal link exists." "I therefore find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the plaintiffs' experts have applied reliable methodologies to arrive at their opinions that the pre- and post-2020 epidemiologic studies, taken as a whole, demonstrate a positive, statistically significant association between genital talc powder use and ovarian cancer," the judge continued. The judge reiterated in the report that she is addressing the admissibility of the experts, and that it will be up to a jury to weigh the evidence and reach a conclusion. Judge Wolfson made her recommendation to U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp, who is presiding over the MDL. It's by far the largest pending MDL in the country, with 67,000 claims and more filed each day, according to the judge's report. Andy Birchfield of Beasley Allen, which represents women in the litigation, hailed the ruling as a "major victory" for the plaintiffs. "Let me be clear: Our clients will prevail. Our trial teams are ready. The science is strong. We'll go toe-to-toe as long as it takes," Birchfield said in a statement. "It's time for J&J to reconsider its horribly flawed strategy." The judge's report covers about 40 experts. Judge Wolfson did bar experts from testifying on the presence of heavy metals and fragrance in the talc. J&J's worldwide litigation head Eric Haas said in a statement that the company will appeal the report to Judge Shipp on the grounds that Judge Wolfson overstepped her gatekeeping duty. Out of the 17 ovarian cases J&J has tried, it has won 16 either at trial or on appeal, Haas said. "Importantly, this recommendation has no impact on our overall litigation strategy — except to incrementally strengthen our position," Haas said in a statement. "We will continue to aggressively defend against these meritless cases one-by-one because valid science and the law are squarely on our side and will only continue to strengthen in our favor moving forward." The steering committee is represented by Christopher M. Placitella of Cohen Placitella & Roth PC, Michelle A. Parfitt of Ashcraft & Gerel LLP and Leigh O'Dell of the Beasley Allen Law Firm. J&J is represented by Jessica Brennan of Barnes & Thornburg LLP and Allison Brown, Jessica Davidson and Kristen Fournier of Kirkland & Ellis LLP. The federal multidistrict litigation is In re: Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Products Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, case number 3:16-md-02738, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Jan 21

4 min

An Arizona federal jury on Thursday found that Uber wasn't negligent with respect to rider safety but was liable for the actions of a driver who allegedly sexually assaulted a passenger in 2023, awarding the rider $8.5 million in damages in the first such federal bellwether trial. Uber said that a jury's verdict in a sexual assault bellwether trial clearing the company of negligence claims "affirms that Uber acted responsibly and has invested meaningfully in rider safety. We will continue to put safety at the heart of everything we do." (David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images) The jury of six women and three men deliberated for about 12 hours over three days before finding that the driver was acting as the "apparent agent" of Uber, making the ride-sharing company liable for the sexual assault. The jury awarded $8.5 million in compensatory damages, but declined to award any punitive damages. Jurors rejected claims that Uber was negligent with respect to rider safety, and the award was far below the $144 million in compensatory and punitive damages that the plaintiff had sought. The verdict wraps a three-week trial in the first federal lawsuit to go before a jury over Uber's liability for assaults committed by its drivers. The plaintiff in the test case says she relied on Uber's representations regarding its security and safety measures when she booked a ride through the app after an evening of drinking — and then was raped by her Uber driver. During closing arguments on Tuesday, a lawyer for plaintiff Jaylynn Dean urged the jury to award the woman $24 million in compensatory damages for her emotional suffering and another $120.2 million to "punish" Uber. Deborah Chang of Chang Klein LLP told jurors that Uber concealed critical safety information from women about how the risks of sexual assault are higher for women who are alone, who are intoxicated, and who are traveling late at night. Meanwhile, the company funneled billions of dollars in marking that touted Uber as their safest option, "to lull these vulnerable women into a false sense of security," Chang said. A significant damages award would get the attention of Uber and the ride-hailing industry at large, Chang said. Dean filed her suit in December 2023, weeks after the alleged sexual assault in Tempe, Arizona. She raised three claims: negligence, product defect and "apparent agency," a legal doctrine in which a principal is held liable for an agent's actions by a third party who believed an agency relationship existed. Uber maintains that its app only connects passengers with independent contractors who provide the rides. During Uber's closing argument on Tuesday, the company's lawyer told the jury that Uber has acted with reasonable care. "What happened in that car was not foreseeable," said Kim Bueno of Kirkland & Ellis LLP. "There is not a defective design of this app." Bueno reminded jurors on Tuesday that the driver claims the sex was consensual, although that was also against Uber's rules for drivers. Uber did regular background checks on the driver, there's no evidence that he had a criminal background, and he had positive reviews, mostly five-star ratings, she said. Bueno also went over safety measures she said Uber has implemented over the years to reduce sexual assaults. The suit names Uber Technologies Inc. and its subsidiaries Raiser LLC and Rasier-Ca LLC as defendants. An Uber spokesperson said in a statement Thursday afternoon the company plans to appeal the jury's decision on liability for the driver's actions. "The jury rejected claims that Uber was negligent and that our safety systems were defective. They awarded an amount far below what was sought, and declined to award punitive damages altogether," the spokesperson said. "This verdict affirms that Uber acted responsibly and has invested meaningfully in rider safety. We will continue to put safety at the heart of everything we do." Co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs, Sarah London of Girard Sharp, welcomed the jury's decision. "Today's verdict validates the thousands of survivors who have come forward at great personal risk to demand accountability against Uber for its focus on profit over passenger safety," London said. "The jury heard extensive evidence about Uber's practices and recognized that Uber is responsible for the conduct of its drivers." She praised the decision as a victory for her client, but warned that "the work is far from over" after this first trial. "Thousands of cases remain, and justice will ultimately be measured by the outcomes of the ongoing litigation and whether meaningful safety reforms are implemented to protect passengers going forward," London said. San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer, who is overseeing the multidistrict litigation, presided over the trial in Phoenix, which began Jan. 13. On Tuesday, outside the jury's presence, Judge Breyer announced to the parties that the next bellwether in the MDL will begin on April 12 in North Carolina. In September, a state court jury in San Francisco considered similar allegations in the first such state court bellwether trial. That jury held that Uber was negligent with respect to safety measures it took to protect a passenger who says she was sexually assaulted by her driver. But the jury concluded that Uber wasn't liable for damages because its negligence wasn't a substantial factor in causing her harm. Dean and the plaintiffs in the MDL are represented by co-lead counsel Sarah R. London of Girard Sharp LLP, Rachel B. Abrams of Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane Conway & Wise LLP, Roopal P. Luhana of Chaffin Luhana LLP, Alexandra M. Walsh of Anapol Weiss and Deborah Chang of Chang Klein LLP. Uber Technologies Inc., Rasier LLC and Rasier-Ca LLC are represented by Laura Vartain Horn, Kim Bueno, Allison M. Brown, Tara L. Blake and Jessica Davidson of Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Sabrina H. Strong and Jonathan Schneller of O'Melveny & Myers LLP. The case is Jaylyn Dean v. Uber Technologies Inc. et al., case number 2:25-cv-04276, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The MDL is In re: Uber Technologies Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation, case number 3:23-md-03084, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California.

Feb 5

5 min

Lyft Inc. must hand over sexual misconduct records it has on four men who allegedly assaulted and raped passengers while driving for Uber, a California federal judge has ruled, saying such documents could show that Uber, the defendant in multidistrict litigation, knew of the drivers' past conduct. U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros ordered Lyft on Wednesday to largely comply with a subpoena brought by four women, all of whom are plaintiffs in upcoming bellwether trials accusing Uber Technologies Inc. of failing to protect its customers, resulting in each of them being sexually assaulted. Lyft, which is not a defendant in this case, must produce certain documents it might have about the four men who drove for both ride-hailing companies, the order said. The documents include background checks, reports of sexual misconduct, and records it shared with the Industry Sharing Safety Program, a database run by a separate entity that collects passenger grievances about drivers that Uber and Lyft voluntarily submit. The four passengers have a "legitimate interest" in what these documents could show as it relates to what Uber could or should have discovered about the four drivers who allegedly assaulted the plaintiffs, Judge Cisneros said. "Those documents generally could be relevant to show what information Uber could have learned if it had conducted more thorough background checks before allowing drivers to use its platform, or if Uber (in conjunction with Lyft) had structured or implemented their [Industry Sharing Safety Program] data sharing partnership differently, or perhaps also if Uber had conducted more thorough investigations in response to riders' complaints," the judge said. "Such information, if found, would likely be admissible and relevant at trial." Judge Cisneros did narrow the request to only documents that dated before the alleged assaults occurred and concerned sexual assault. Lyft has just three weeks to produce documents for one of the passengers, as her bellwether trial against Uber is set to start in April. The company has two months to fulfill the other three subpoenas. The MDL, centralized in the Northern District of California, consolidates hundreds of federal lawsuits against Uber brought by passengers who allege they were sexually assaulted or harassed by drivers. The plaintiffs claim Uber was negligent in its screening and hiring practices, failing to conduct adequate background checks that would have revealed red flags about the drivers. They also say Uber failed to properly investigate grievances about drivers and share safety information with Lyft. Uber was hit with an $8.5 million verdict earlier this month in the first bellwether trial when a federal jury in Arizona found that it was not negligent with respect to rider safety, but was liable for the actions of a driver who allegedly assaulted a passenger in 2023. Three of the four upcoming bellwether plaintiffs — identified as C.L., A.R. and WHB 823 — claim "they were sexually assaulted, battered, harassed, or otherwise attacked by" their Uber drivers, according to their short form complaints. One of the passengers, identified as B.L., claims her driver raped her outside her apartment complex while she was intoxicated in 2022, according to her amended complaint. Lyft had "refused to search for any of the requested documents" the four plaintiffs sought, according to the court record. The company argued it shouldn't have to abide by the subpoena because they allowed their request to languish, only renewing it after the close of discovery. But Judge Cisneros noted that the company had no problem partially fulfilling a similar request Uber made ahead of another the first bellwether trial, despite its subpoena coming in late. "Lyft has not justified why one party may be permitted to serve a subpoena after the cut-off while another party should be disallowed from renewing a request for discovery pursuant to a timely served subpoena," Judge Cisneros said. "In other words, Lyft has not persuaded the court that different standards for diligence should apply to different parties in the same action, at least so long as any such delay does not require Lyft to produce documents on an unreasonable timeline." Lyft, Uber and counsel for the plaintiffs steering committee didn't respond to requests for comment on Thursday. Uber is represented by Laura Vartain Horn, Allison M. Brown and Jessica Davidson of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Sabrina H. Strong and Jonathan Schneller of O'Melveny and Myers LLP, and Alycia A. Degen, Michael B. Shortnacy, Patrick L. Oot Jr. and Christopher V. Cotton of Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP. B.L. is represented by Sommer D. Luther of Wagstaff Law Firm. C.L. is represented by Tracey B. Cowan, Zarrina Ozari and Ryan J. Clarkson of Clarkson Law Firm PC. A.R. is represented by Rachel B. Abrams, Adam B. Wolf and Tiffany R. Ellis of Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane Conway & Wise LLP. WHB 823 is represented by John Eddie Williams Jr., Brian Abramson, Margret Lecocke, Walt Cubberly, Batami Baskin and Myles Shaw of William Hart & Boundas LLP. The case is In re: Uber Technologies Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation, case number 3:23-md-03084, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Feb 19

4 min

Uber's chief product officer, the final live defense witness Monday in a bellwether trial over the company's sexual assault liability in multidistrict litigation involving thousands of cases, rejected claims that Uber dragged its feet on implementing some safety measures, while conceding "we have not done enough." Monday marked the 14th day of trial in the case brought by plaintiff Jaylynn Dean, who alleges she was raped by her Uber driver in Arizona in 2023. On the stand for the defense was Uber Chief Product Officer Sachin Kansal, who described a sea change and heightened focus on safety when he joined the company in June 2017 — with new CEO Dara Khosrowshahi coming on board just weeks later to replace co-owner Travis Kalanick. Kim Bueno of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, counsel for Uber, asked Kansal about his goals. "Let's be frank: When you came into Uber in June of 2017, were you concerned about Uber's safety reputation, and did you want to improve it?" Bueno asked. Kansal said the public wasn't aware of some safety measures Uber already had in place, such as phone anonymization that protected users' and drivers' privacy by masking their phone numbers, and a feature that allowed users to share their real-time ride with a third-party contact. "And two, obviously, there were big gaps in terms of what features we should have," Kansal said. So he set to work increasing awareness of the existing features and building new ones, he said. Bueno showed Kansal an internal 2018 Uber document entitled "Stand For Safety." On one page was a statement that read, "We have outgrown the 'growth at all costs' model that guided us for years." Bueno asked if Kansal felt that was true. Kansal said it was hard for him to answer that because he didn't know how the company was operating before he came on board. "I can only say that ever since I joined, safety was a very, very high priority," the Uber executive said. Under Khosrowshahi's leadership, the company had collectively established safety as the No. 1 priority by the end of 2017, Kansal said. The safety push, however, has taken some time to get some features right, the Uber executive said. Bueno showed an Uber document that said the company will not "rush new products and features to market" if they still posed safety concerns. Kansal said he's held off on launching a product that's not ready. Later, Bueno asked the executive about Uber's "women preferred" program, launched in 2025, which allows women riders to request women drivers and vice versa. The lawyer showed him a September 2018 Uber document stating that the U.S. has a large enough female-driver population to make the program viable. Kansal said there was still a supply concern since about 50% of riders are women, but only 15 to 20% are drivers. There were also legal and policy risks, he said, including concerns about gender identity discrimination. "If someone identifies themselves as a certain gender, whereas biologically, they may be a different gender, that can cause some confusion in terms of both the rider as well as the driver," Kansal said. There's also the potential for "bad actors," he said — men who claim they're women drivers in order to assault women passengers. "We put a whole process around that to give [the rider] a way to be able to cancel," the Uber executive said. In addition, there were hurdles with another safety idea — dashboard cameras — since many drivers didn't want them, there were technical issues with uploading the camera footage to Uber, and there were privacy issues, Kansal said. Uber eventually launched an audio-recording feature within its app, he noted. "Just so we're clear, as of November 2023, in-app audio recording was available for both drivers and riders," Bueno asked. Kansal said yes. Uber also rolled out its safety risk assessed dispatch, or S-RAD, program: an internal, artificial intelligence-driven tool designed to flag potentially dangerous rides, Kansal told jurors. A lawyer for Dean and the other MDL plaintiffs, Sarah London of Girard Sharp LLP, said the timing of when Uber finally launched its women-only program was suspicious. Even though in 2018 Uber said it had enough women drivers to launch such a product, it didn't start working on the program until 2024, she underscored. Kansal reminded her of the "complexities" regarding the program discussed during his direct examination. London pointed to an 2023 email exchange that included Kansal, then-Uber safety chief Gus Fuldner and Uber Communications Director Andrew Hasbun, in which Hasbun said, "We got a tip today that Lyft is planning to announce a women-driver preferred option as soon as next week." Hasbun later noted in the exchange that Uber should be careful in its response to the news. "I don't think using a legal argument as cover for us not doing a woman rider, picking woman driver feature will be a strong response, given the amount of companies who are willing to take the risk," Hasbun said in the email. London pointed out that Hasbun also noted in the September 2023 email exchange that many of the cities Uber had thought about launching its women-only program in were "high risk" areas for sexual assault, including Chicago, Phoenix, San Diego, San Francisco and San Jose. "Mr. Kansal, has Uber ever told publicly to anyone who lives in Phoenix that Uber has identified it as a high-risk city for women?" London asked. The executive said that's not something he'd know about. Later, during redirect, Bueno asked Kansal if Uber had unnecessarily pumped the brakes on some safety measures. "What's your response when somebody says that you and your team dragged your feet and didn't do enough to get these options available earlier?" Bueno asked. Kansal said he disagreed with the characterization, noting he had outlined for the court the safety products Uber built over the past eight years he's been with the company. "I first want to say we have not done enough. There's a lot more that we have to do," Kansal said. "But we have launched many, many industry firsts." Bueno asked if Kansal continues to do everything he can to decrease sexual assault on the platform. The executive said yes. Dean filed her suit in December 2023, weeks after the alleged sexual assault. According to her complaint, she had been out drinking with friends and had ordered a ride from Uber to get back to her hotel. After getting into the back seat of the vehicle, Dean said she laid down and closed her eyes. Mid-ride, the driver stopped the vehicle, got into the back seat and raped her, she said. She immediately reported the incident to Uber and the police, according to the complaint. On Jan. 26, Dean took the stand and told jurors about the incident. On Monday, Uber showed jurors a video of Dean reporting the alleged assault about an hour after it happened to police officers, captured by one officer's body camera. In the video, Dean said she was still "really drunk" after consuming a hard spritzer, half a canned piña colada cocktail and numerous shots earlier that evening. "He pulled over … and raped me," Dean told the officers in the video. "He got on top of me ... I really don't remember much ... There was penetration ... like vaginally." Jurors on Monday also heard a tape-recorded conversation between the driver and a police detective. The driver said Dean was drunk when she got into his vehicle and had made the first move by grabbing him between the legs. San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer, who is overseeing the MDL, is presiding over the trial in Phoenix, which began Jan. 13. In pretrial proceedings last month, the judge ruled Uber can't introduce evidence that the driver wasn't criminally charged. The judge also rejected Uber's request to postpone the trial, rebuffing the company's assertion that the jury would be tainted by a commercial from a plaintiffs' counsel advocacy group that claims Uber refused to make safety improvements. A state court bellwether trial was held in September in San Francisco over similar allegations. The jury held in that case that Uber was negligent with respect to safety measures it took to protect a passenger who says she was sexually assaulted by her driver, but the company isn't liable for damages because its negligence wasn't a substantial factor in causing her harm. On Monday, Uber filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law in Dean's case, arguing "no reasonable jury could find Uber liable on this trial record." Closing arguments for the trial are scheduled for Tuesday. Dean and the plaintiffs in the MDL are represented by co-lead counsel Sarah R. London of Girard Sharp LLP, Rachel B. Abrams of Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane Conway & Wise LLP, and Roopal P. Luhana of Chaffin Luhana LLP. Uber Technologies Inc., and its subsidiaries Rasier LLC and Rasier-Ca LLC are represented by Laura Vartain Horn, Kim Bueno, Allison M. Brown, Tara L. Blake and Jessica Davidson of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, and Sabrina H. Strong and Jonathan P. Schneller of O'Melveny & Myers LLP. The case is Jaylynn Dean v. Uber Technologies Inc. et al., case number 2:25-cv-04276, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The MDL is In re: Uber Technologies Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation, case number 3:23-md-03084, in the U.S. District Court for the California Northern District.

Feb 2

7 min

Uber should pay more than $144 million in compensatory and punitive damages for choosing "profit over safety," leading to the rape of a 19-year-old woman by a rideshare driver, her lawyer told an Arizona federal jury at the close of a landmark bellwether trial on Tuesday. Uber should pay $24 million in compensatory damages and another $120.2 million in punitive damages to a woman alleging she was raped by a rideshare driver, the plaintiff's lawyer says. (Aaron M. Sprecher via AP) The closing arguments capped a three-week trial in the first federal lawsuit to go before a jury over Uber's liability for assaults committed by its drivers. The plaintiff in the test case says she relied on Uber's representations regarding its security and safety measures when she booked a ride through the app after an evening of drinking — and then was raped by her Uber driver. A lawyer for plaintiff Jaylynn Dean urged the nine-member jury during closing arguments to award the woman $24 million in compensatory damages for her emotional suffering and another $120.2 million to "punish" Uber. Deobrah Chang of Chang Klein LLP told jurors that Uber concealed critical safety information from women about how the risks of sexual assault are higher for women who are alone, who are intoxicated and who are traveling late at night. Meanwhile, the company invested billions of dollars into advertising touting Uber as their safest option, "to lull these vulnerable women into a false sense of security," Chang said. Worse, Uber has attacked the credibility of sexual assault victims that have come forward, she said. "They knew it was foreseeable and preventable, but they always chose profit over protection, prevention and safety," the lawyer told jurors. A significant damages award will get the attention of Uber and the rideshare industry at large, Chang said. "That is something that will dictate their behavior in the future, and the rideshare industry's," the lawyer said. "That is how important punitive damages are." The $120.2 million is how much revenue Uber reportedly makes in a day, the lawyer said. There are three claims in Dean's case: negligence, product defect and "apparent agency," a legal doctrine in which a principle is held liable for an agent's actions by a third party who believed an agency relationship existed. Uber has argued that its app only connects riders with "independent contractors" who provide the rides. During Uber's closing argument on Tuesday, the company's lawyer told the jury of six women and three men that Uber should win on all three claims. "Uber did act with reasonable care," said Kim Bueno of Kirkland & Ellis LLP. "What happened in that car was not foreseeable. There is not a defective design of this app." Bueno also underscored that the jury must find that Uber caused the alleged assault. "You can't just determine that Uber is negligent, you have to determine that that negligence caused Miss Dean's injury," Uber's lawyer said. Dean filed her suit in December 2023, weeks after the alleged sexual assault in Tempe, Arizona. According to her complaint, she had been out drinking — celebrating her impending graduation from flight attendant training — and had ordered a ride from Uber to get back to her hotel. After getting into the back seat of the vehicle, Dean said she laid down and closed her eyes. The driver stopped the vehicle mid-ride, got into the back seat and raped her, she said. She immediately reported the incident to Uber and the police, according to the complaint. Bueno reminded jurors on Tuesday that the driver claims the sex was consensual, although that was also against Uber's rules for drivers. "Was it foreseeable to Uber that this driver … would violate the 'no sex' rule?" Bueno asked. "The answer to that is no." Uber did regular background checks on the driver, there's no evidence that he had a criminal background and he had positive reviews, mostly five-star ratings. During her closing argument, Bueno also went over safety measures she said Uber has implemented over the years to reduce sexual assaults. "The evidence is that Uber has spent tremendous amount of resources and money on things like background checks, safety education, a hotline fund, safety employees," Bueno said. "More than $1.3 billion on these efforts." Uber has also put out data about safety-related incidents that occur during rides, including sexual assaults, she said. "There was a suggestion that we were not being transparent enough in these reports," Bueno said. "Uber was the first company to say, 'We want to be transparent. We want to turn on the lights to our problem on our platform.'" Another lawyer for Dean, Sarah London of Girard Sharp LLP, gave the final rebuttal argument and told jurors that Bueno wasn't forthright when she said the assault wasn't foreseeable. Evidence was presented at trial that the driver was "a rule-breaker" who had violated Uber policies like a prohibition on accepting cash from riders, had made improper remarks to some passengers and had been checked for excessive speeding, London said. In addition, Uber's internal artificial intelligence-powered program for dispatchers — the Safety Risk Assessed Dispatch, or S-RAD — showed that Dean's driver had a higher than average score that made him a poor match for an intoxicated solo female passenger, London said. "They sent him anyway, and they didn't warn her," the lawyer said. San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer, who is overseeing the multidistrict litigation, has been presiding over the trial in Phoenix, which began Jan. 13. In pretrial proceedings last month, the judge ruled that Uber could not introduce evidence that the driver wasn't criminally charged. The plaintiffs also claim that Uber has a duty to warn passengers of known dangers. "If you determine that the danger to the plaintiff was unforeseeable to Uber or that Uber had taken reasonable precautions to avoid the danger, then Uber's conduct was not negligent," Judge Breyer told jurors Tuesday morning before closing arguments. The suit's second claim asserts that the Uber app is a "defective and unreasonably dangerous" product. The claimed design defects are a lack of an app-based ride video recording feature at the time of the incident and an option that would have allowed Dean to be matched with a female driver. In September, a state court jury in San Francisco considered similar allegations in the first such state court bellwether trial. That jury held that Uber was negligent with respect to safety measures it took to protect a passenger who says she was sexually assaulted by her driver. But the jury concluded that Uber wasn't liable for damages because its negligence wasn't a substantial factor in causing her harm. On Monday, Uber's chief product officer, the final live defense witness, rejected claims that Uber dragged its feet on implementing some safety measures, saying his team worked diligently to get the Women Preference and audio recording features up and running. But he told jurors "there's a lot more that we have to do." The jury began their deliberations Tuesday afternoon and will continue on Wednesday. Outside the jury's presence, Judge Breyer announced to the parties that the next bellwether in the MDL will begin on April 12 in North Carolina. The suit names Uber Technologies Inc. and its subsidiaries Raiser LLC and Rasier-Ca LLC as defendants. Dean and the plaintiffs in the MDL are represented by co-lead counsel Sarah R. London of Girard Sharp LLP, Rachel B. Abrams of Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane Conway & Wise LLP, Roopal P. Luhana of Chaffin Luhana LLP, Alexandra M. Walsh of Anapol Weiss and Deobrah Chang of Chang Klein LLP. Uber Technologies Inc., Rasier LLC and Rasier-Ca LLC are represented by Laura Vartain Horn, Kim Bueno, Allison M. Brown, Tara L. Blake and Jessica Davidson of Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Sabrina H. Strong and Jonathan Schneller of O'Melveny & Myers LLP. The case is Jaylyn Dean v. Uber Technologies Inc. et al., case number 2:25-cv-04276, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The MDL is In re: Uber Technologies Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation, case number 3:23-md-03084, in the U.S. District Court for the California Northern District.

Feb 3

6 min