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.