Uber can get $30,000 from an opposing attorney as "partial reimbursement" for the ride-hailing company's attorney fees in multidistrict litigation over sexual assault liability, a California federal judge ruled Tuesday, ordering the payment as a sanction against the attorney for disclosing confidential Uber information in other lawsuits.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros said that sanctions were warranted against Bret Stanley of Johnson Law Group because he violated a December 2023 protective order and a subsequent order from August.

Judge Cisneros said that Stanley's violation was also "not substantially justified."

"The court is not persuaded that there was any reasonable basis to dispute the application of the protective order to the disclosures at issue," she wrote in an order. "The violation was instead 'pretty straightforward.'"

The $30,000 that Judge Cisneros ordered Stanley to pay, however, was substantially less than Uber's requested amount of more than $168,500.

Judge Cisneros said that Uber "has not shown any significant actual or likely harm from the disclosure of the material at issue, and its request for attorneys' fees is excessive under the circumstances presented."

She said that an award of $30,000 is "necessary and sufficient to deter future violations and appropriate to partially compensate Uber for its costs."

Stanley is among several plaintiff attorneys in the sprawling MDL, which was filed in 2023. 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 Uber was not negligent with respect to rider safety but was liable for the actions of a driver who allegedly assaulted a passenger in 2023. The plaintiff in the test case had alleged that 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. The award came in well below the $144 million in compensatory and punitive damages sought.

Judge Cisneros' order comes after she warned Stanley in January that he was on "thin ice" after Uber argued he should be sanctioned for using discovery in the MDL to litigate other cases against the ride-hailing company.

According to Tuesday's order, the court had previously determined that Stanley violated a December 2023 protective order and that Uber moved for monetary sanctions after the court ordered remedial steps, including notice to counsel and courts in the other cases where improper disclosures occurred. Uber specifically asked the court to award it $168,572.97 in attorney fees.

Judge Cisneros said Tuesday that the court's previous determination that Stanley violated the protective order "is itself a basis for sanctions."

She said that there was also "no dispute" that Stanley did not notify the courts or counsel in other litigation of an August order that found Stanley violated the protective order by using and disclosing 587 rows of information on a spreadsheet of internal policies that Uber had designated as confidential under the protective order.

Stanley's disclosure "unilaterally rendered Uber's designations meaningless, disregarding the protective order's process for challenging a designation if parties reasonably disagree over whether information should be protected," Judge Cisneros wrote in her order.

Judge Cisneros said that there, however, were considerations that supported a "significant reduction from the full sum that Uber seeks."

Uber, for instance, "appears to have sandbagged its request for sanctions for violation of the protective order," Judge Cisneros wrote.

"Nothing in Uber's motion to enforce the protective order indicated that more than $150,000 in attorneys' fees would remain like a sword hanging by a slender thread, ready to drop if Stanley was late or otherwise delinquent in meeting his obligations," Judge Cisneros wrote. "Nor did that motion indicate that Uber would seek its attorneys' fees regardless of whether Stanley complied with any subsequent order enforcing the protective order, which Uber represented at the December 9 hearing was always its intent."

Judge Cisneros said that Stanley's violation also "was not egregious."

Comparing Stanley's disclosure to that of counsel in another lawsuit, Judge Cisneros said that Stanley "did not simply hand over protected documents to anyone, much less to the press."

She said that the court was also satisfied that Stanley, more likely than not, "genuinely — though unreasonably" — believed that he did not violate the protective order.

"The court has serious concerns about Stanley's lax approach to the protective order, but Uber has not shown bad faith," Judge Cisneros wrote.

Stanley told Law360 that it is "unfortunate that Uber has continually fought to avoid court-ordered production of important and relevant documents in multiple cases filed against them around the country — similar to their previous attempts to conceal evidence in the MDL, which the court recognized 'wasted the court's and plaintiffs' time' through incomplete and misleading disclosures."

"Uber's tactics only delays the ability of victims to have their day in court and 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.

Stanley said that he also looks forward to "continuing to vigorously represent my clients in their fight against Uber, not only in the MDL court but also in courts around the country," and hopes to "be able to work with opposing counsel to amicably resolve any further discovery disputes."

Counsel for Uber did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday evening.

Stanley represented himself in the sanctions dispute.

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.

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.