Order: IN RE LYFT RIDESHARE CASES

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                1 WARREN METLITZKY (CA Bar No. 220758)
   GABRIELA KIPNIS (CA Bar No. 284965)
 2 COURTNEY C. AASEN (CA Bar No. 307404)                                        ELECTRONICALLY
   CONRAD | METLITZKY | KANE LLP                                                   FILED
 3 Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400                                         Superior Court of California,
   San Francisco, CA 94111                                                      County of San Francisco

 4 Telephone: (415) 343-7100                                                       02/17/2021
   Facsimile: (415) 343-7101                                                    Clerk of the Court
 5 Email: wmetlitzky@conmetkane.com                                               BY: JUDITH NUNEZ
                                                                                             Deputy Clerk
   Email: gkipnis@conmetkane.com
 6 Email: caasen@conmetkane.com

 7 Attorneys for Defendant Lyft, Inc.

 8 WILLIAM A. LEVIN (CA Bar No. 98592)
   ANGELA NEHMENS (CA Bar No. 309433)
 9 LEVIN SIMES ABRAMS LLP
   1700 Montgomery Street, Suite 250
10 San Francisco, California 94111
   Tel: (415) 426-3000
11 Fax: (415) 426-3001
   Email: wlevin@levinsimes.com
12 Email: anehmens@levinsimes.com

13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

14 [Additional Counsel on next page]

15
                              SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
16
                                        COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
17

18   Coordination Proceeding                         CASE NO. CJC-20-005061
     Special Title (Rule 3.550)
19                                                   JUDICIAL COUNCIL COORDINATION
                                                     PROCEEDING NO. 5061
20
     In Re: LYFT ASSAULT CASES1                      Case Assigned to the Honorable Andrew Y.S. Cheng,
21                                                   Dept. 613

22                                                   JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
     This Document Relates to:                       REGARDING PROTECTIVE ORDER
23
            ALL ACTIONS                              Conference Date: February 18, 2021
24                                                   Conference Time: 9:00am
                                                     Judge: Hon. Andrew Y.S. Cheng
25                                                   Department 613

26

27          1
           Lyft continues to object to the name of the proceeding. On December 11, 2020, Lyft filed a
28 motion to change the name of the proceeding, which is pending before the Court.

     CASE NO. CJC-20-005061                                              JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
30
   Stephen J. Estey, Esq. (SBN 163093)
 1 R. Michael Bomberger, Esq. (SBN 169866)
   Kristen K. Barton, Esq. (SBN 303228)
 2
   ESTEY & BOMBERGER, LLP
 3 2869 India Street
   San Diego, CA 92103
 4 Telephone: (619) 295-0035
   Facsimile: (619) 295-0172
 5 Email: steve@estey-bomberger.com
   Email: mike@estey-bomberger.com
 6 Email: kristen@estey-bomberger.com

 7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

 8

 9 C. Brooks Cutter, Esq. (SBN 121407)
   Celine Cutter, Esq. (SBN 312622)
10 CUTTER LAW PC
   40 Watt Avenue
11 Sacramento, CA 95864
   Telephone: (916) 290-9400
12 Facsimile: (916) 588-9330
   Email: bcutter@cutterlaw.com
13 Email: ccutter@cutterlaw.com

14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

15
   HEIDI K. HUBBARD (pro hac vice)
16 BETH A. STEWART (pro hac vice)
   ANA C. REYES (pro hac vice)
17 DAVID RANDALL J. RISKIN (pro hac vice)
   WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
18 725 Twelfth Street, NW
   Washington, DC 20005
19 Telephone: (202) 434-5000
   Facsimile: (202) 434-5029
20 Email: hhubbard@wc.com
   Email: bstewart@wc.com
21 Email: areyes@wc.com
   Email: driskin@wc.com
22
   Attorneys for Defendant Lyft, Inc.
23

24

25

26

27

28
                                             -1-
     CASE NO. CJC-20-005061                        JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
30
 1          In their February 11, 2021 Joint Case Management Statement, the Parties notified the Court they

 2 were conferring on a draft protective order that Lyft, Inc. had provided Plaintiffs. The Parties made

 3 significant progress in reaching an agreement on the order’s terms, but they were unable to bridge the

 4 gap on one disputed issue. Plaintiffs believe only one tier of confidentiality (“Confidential”) is

 5 necessary. Lyft believes two tiers of confidentiality (“Confidential” and “Highly Confidential—

 6 Attorneys’ Eyes Only”) are required.

 7          The current draft of the protective order is attached as Exhibit A; Lyft’s proposed additions

 8 reflecting two tiers of confidentiality are in blue.

 9          A.      Plaintiffs’ Position.

10          Plaintiffs believe only one tier of confidentiality designation (“Confidential”) is necessary in the

11 instant litigation for three reasons. First, and most importantly, Defendant Lyft has already entered into a

12 Stipulation and Protective Order in a case now coordinated in JCCP 5061 which only included a single

13 tier confidentiality designation. Second, having a two-tier designation would only serve to generate

14 additional disputes between the parties and likely require additional intervention by this Court. Third,

15 the instant litigation is not comparable to the securities litigation before this Court.

16          On May 11, 2018 Plaintiff Jane Doe filed a complaint against Lyft in Los Angeles Superior

17 Court (Jane Doe v. LYFT, Inc. et al. LASC Case No. BC705652) (“Los Angeles Jane Doe Case”). The

18 complaint contained allegations consistent with those involved in the In Re: Lyft Assault Cases, JCCP
19 No. 5061. On or about April 16, 2019, Defendant Lyft filed a Motion for Entry of Protective Order in

20 the Los Angeles Jane Doe Case which was to be heard on May 31, 2019. In their moving papers,

21 Defendant Lyft requested only one tier for confidentiality, “Confidential.” On June 28, 2019 the

22 Honorable Ralph C. Hofer entered a Stipulation and Protective Order – Confidential Designation Only

23 (attached hereto as Exhibit B). The Stipulation and Protective Order contained only one designation,

24 “Confidential.” Pursuant to that protective order, Defendant Lyft produced documents to Counsel Estey

25 & Bomberger, LLP in the Los Angeles Jane Doe Case. On January 4, 2021 this Court entered an Order

26 Regarding Addition of Cases to JCCP 5061 and Stay of Cases which included the Los Angeles Jane Doe

27 Case making it now a part of the instant JCCP.

28
                                                          -2-
     CASE NO. CJC-20-005061                                                    JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
30
 1          As this Court is aware, Plaintiffs have served general discovery on Defendant Lyft in the JCCP

 2 Cases. As part of these discovery requests, Plaintiffs requested production of the documents produced in

 3 the Los Angeles Jane Doe Case. Defendant Lyft has indicated that it will produce such documents

 4 subject to entry of a Protective Order in the JCCP Cases. However, Defendant has now taken the

 5 position that there must be a “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY” designation

 6 in the JCCP Cases, where no such designation was even suggested by Lyft in the Los Angeles Jane Doe

 7 Case. For Lyft to now require a higher tier of confidential designation is nonsensical. The parties have

 8 already stipulated to the fact that the claims involved in the Los Angeles Jane Doe Case included similar

 9 allegations to the cases coordinated in JCCP 5061. It only stands to reason that the discovery Plaintiffs

10 seek in the JCCP Cases would be adequately protected by a single “Confidential” designation in a

11 Protective Order.

12          As a related matter, adding a second tier of confidentiality designation would likely result in

13 certain categories of documents being designated as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS

14 EYES ONLY” which were similar to categories of documents designated in the Los Angeles Jane Doe

15 Cases as only “Confidential.” This would result in different confidential designations for the same

16 category of document.

17          Next, Plaintiffs’ believe that having two tiers of confidentiality designations would only serve to

18 generate additional disputes and complexity and burden this Court. Having two tiers of confidentiality
19 designations would result in two separate categories of potential disputes. Instead of only having to

20 determine whether a document was deserving of the confidentiality designation or not, the court would

21 also likely be having to make determinations as to the level of confidentiality that is properly afforded to

22 particular documents. This complexity would only serve to further delay the discovery process and place

23 unnecessary burden on the Parties and the Court.

24          Lastly, Defendant Lyft has taken the position in meet and confer communications that a two-tier

25 confidentiality designation is necessary because this Court entered such a protective order in the

26 Securities Litigation case also in front of Your Honor. The instant litigation is not comparable to

27 securities litigation (In Re Lyft, Inc. Securities Litigation, CGC-19-757293) which is a class action

28 making allegations regarding Lyft, Inc.’s Initial Public Offering under the Securities Act of 1933.
                                                       -3-
     CASE NO. CJC-20-005061                                                   JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
30
 1 Instead, and as already stipulated to by Lyft and Plaintiffs, the JCCP Cases are more comparable to the

 2 Los Angeles Jane Doe Case which this Court ordered coordinated into JCCP 5061.

 3          For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs believe only one tier of confidentiality designation is

 4 required in the instant litigation. Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court order a single tier of

 5 confidentiality designation (“Confidential”) in the Stipulation and Protective Order.

 6          B.      Lyft’s Position.

 7          Lyft proposes two tiers of protection for confidential information, allowing the Parties to

 8 designate protected information either as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential—Attorneys’ Eyes

 9 Only,” with the latter contemplating a more limited scope of disclosure. That proposal, and the

10 definitions of the categories themselves, are substantively indistinguishable to the two-tier structure the

11 Court recently entered in In re Lyft, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. CGC-19-575293 (S.F. Super. Ct.),

12 which defined “Highly Confidential” to encompass, for example, “competitively sensitive information,”

13 “strategic business planning information,” and “structure of software or hardware designs.” Plaintiffs

14 have sought (and Lyft has agreed to provide) information about, for example, “design features on the

15 Lyft application” and Lyft’s decisionmaking regarding its policies and procedures—topics that implicate

16 those highly-sensitive categories. Fulsome protection for that material is appropriate.

17          Nor would a two-tier classification cause Plaintiffs harm. Under Lyft’s proposal, “Highly

18 Confidential” information could be disclosed (with the proper protections) to anyone to whom
19 “Confidential” can be shown, with two exceptions: it could not be shared with non-party fact witnesses

20 or individual Plaintiffs. Neither group has any reason to see Lyft’s most-sensitive information, and the

21 fact neither has access to that material will not impede Plaintiffs in developing their cases.

22 Plaintiffs have responded by pointing to the protective order entered in Jane Doe v. Lyft, Inc., et al., No.

23 BC 705652 (L.A. Cty.), a case that has been coordinated in this JCCP, which only had one tier of

24 confidentiality. Although the allegations in that action are similar to the allegations in the other

25 coordinated cases, this JCCP sweeps more broadly. Plaintiffs’ discovery requests here ask Lyft to

26 reproduce the documents produced in Jane Doe (which Lyft is doing) but do not stop there—

27 necessitating a different protective order with two tiers of confidentiality.

28
                                                          -4-
     CASE NO. CJC-20-005061                                                     JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
30
 1 Dated: February 17, 2021      LEVIN SIMES ABRAMS LLP

 2
                                 By: _____________________________
 3                                   William A. Levin
 4                                   Angela Nehmans

 5 Dated: February 17, 2021      CUTTER LAW PC

 6
                                 By: _____________________________
 7
                                    Brooks Cutter
 8                                  Celine Cutter

 9 Dated: February 17, 2021      ESTEY & BOMBERGER, LLP

10
                                 By: _____________________________
11
                                    Stephen J. Estey
12                                  R. Michael Bomberger
                                    Kristen K. Barton
13
                                 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
14

15
     Dated: February 17, 2021    CONRAD | METLITZKY | KANE LLP
16

17
                                 By: _____________________________
18                                   Warren Metlitzky
                                     Gabriela Kipnis
19                                   Courtney C. Aasen
20                                    WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
                                      Heidi K. Hubbard
21                                    Beth A. Stewart
22                                    Ana C. Reyes
                                      David Randall J. Riskin
23
                                      Attorneys for Lyft, Inc.
24

25

26

27

28
                                -5-
     CASE NO. CJC-20-005061                          JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
30
Exhibit A
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10                       SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11                         IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
12

13   Coordination Proceeding                               Case No.CJC-20-005061
     Special Title (Rule 3.550)
14                                                         JUDICIAL COUNCIL COORDINATION
                                                           PROCEEDING NO. 5061
15
                                                           STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
16                                                         PROTECTIVE ORDER

17   In Re: LYFT ASSAULT CASES

18                                                         Department: 613
     This Document Relates to:
19                                                         Judge: Hon. Andrew Y.S. Cheng
     ALL ACTIONS
20

21

22

23          Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010 and California Evidence Code §
24   912, and in the interests of efficiency, judicial economy, and avoiding ancillary litigation over
25   discovery issues relating to confidential, proprietary, or private information or the inadvertent

26   production of privileged materials, the undersigned Parties hereby stipulate and agree to this

27   Stipulation and Proposed Protective Order Governing Confidential Information (“Stipulated

28   Protective Order” or “Order”).


                                                       1
                             STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER
 1   1.     PURPOSE AND LIMITATIONS

 2          Disclosure and discovery activity in this Action may involve production of confidential,

 3   proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from

 4   use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the

 5   Parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective

 6   Order. The Parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all

 7   disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and

 8   use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment

 9   under the applicable legal principles. The Parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section

10   12.4 below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file Confidential

11   Information under seal; the California Rules of Court, including Rules 2.550 and 2.551 set forth

12   the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a Party seeks

13   permission from the Court to file material under seal.

14   2.     DEFINITIONS

15          2.1     Action: The above-entitled proceeding, including the current consolidated cases

16   and any add-on cases.

17          2.2     Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of

18   information or items under this Order.

19          2.3     CONFIDENTIAL Information or Items: Any Discovery Material that the

20   Producing Party believes in good faith contains information that is not known to the general

21   public, including but not limited to trade secrets; financial or business plans or projections;

22   proprietary business information, or other confidential research, design, development, financial,

23   or commercial information; personnel information; personal information about any Party to this

24   lawsuit or employees of any Party to this lawsuit; and any information not otherwise available to

25   the public, subject to protection under California Rules of Court 2.550, 2.551, 2.580, 2.585, 8.46,

26   and 8.490 or any information protected by California’s Constitution and common-law right to

27   privacy.

28          2.4     HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY Information or

     Items: Extremely sensitive CONFIDENTIAL information as defined in Section 2.3, including
                                                        2
                             STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER
 1   without limitation, technical and competitively-sensitive information protected by law, the

 2   disclosure of which to another Party or Non-Party would create a substantial risk of serious

 3   financial or other harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means. By way of example

 4   only, HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY information includes, but is

 5   not limited to: transactional sales data; non-public research or analysis; customer information,

 6   including but not limited to non-public customer complaints; financial, marketing, or strategic

 7   business planning information; trade secrets; pricing information; non-public information related

 8   to government or regulatory investigations; information related to government relations strategy;

 9   information relating to research, development, testing of, or plans for existing or proposed future

10   products; Board of Directors information and materials, or information relating to corporate

11   governance or executive committee selection; information representing computer code and

12   associated comments and revision histories, formulas, engineering specifications, or schematics

13   that define or otherwise describe in detail the algorithms or structure of software or hardware

14   designs; personnel files; and communications that constitute, incorporate, summarize, or

15   reference any HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY information.

16          2.5     Counsel: (1) attorneys who have been retained on behalf of a Party to this Action

17   and their Support Staff; (2) attorneys who are employees of a Party to this Action; and/or (3)
18   attorneys representing an insurer or indemnitor of any Defendant, including the insurer’s or
19   indemnitor’s legal personnel.
20          2.6     Designating Party: A Party or Non-Party that designates Discovery Material as

21   CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY.

22          2.7     Discovery Material: Any hard-copy Documents and electronically stored

23   information, answers to interrogatories, deposition testimony, deposition exhibits, and all other

24   discovery in any form, including all information, Documents, and things described in California

25   Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.010 and California Evidence Code §§ 250, 255, and 260

26   produced by Parties and Non-Parties in response to discovery in this Action.

27          2.8     Document: (i) any “Writing,” “Original,” and “Duplicate” as those terms are

28   defined by the California Evidence Code §§ 250, 255, and 260 which have been produced in

                                                      3
                            STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER
 1   discovery in this Proceeding by any person or entity, and (ii) any copies, reproductions, or

 2   summaries of all or any part of the foregoing.

 3             2.9    Expert: A person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent

 4   to the litigation who (1) has been retained by a Party or its Counsel to serve as an expert witness

 5   or as a consultant in this Action; (2) is not a current employee of a Party or of a Party’s

 6   competitor; and (3) at the time of retention, is not in discussions or have a present intention to

 7   become an employee of a Party or of a Party’s competitor. This definition includes any technical

 8   experts, discovery experts, and professional jury or trial consultants retained in connection with

 9   this Action.

10             2.10   Information: The content of Discovery Material.

11             2.11   Non-Party: Any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other
12   legal entity not named as a Party to the Action.
13             2.12   Party: Any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, employees,
14   consultants, retained experts, and Counsel (and their support personnel).
15             2.13   Privileged Material: Discovery Material subject to a claim of attorney-client
16   privilege, work-product protection, or any other privilege or immunity from production.
17             2.14   Producing Party: A Party or Non-Party that produces Discovery Material in this
18   Action.
19             2.15   Professional Vendors: Persons or entities that provide litigation-support services
20   (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and

21   organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and

22   subcontractors.

23             2.16   Protected Material: Any Testimony or Discovery Material that is designated as

24   CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY.

25             2.17   Receiving Party: A Party that receives Discovery Material from a Producing

26   Party.

27             2.18   Support Staff: Legal staff, including but not limited to paralegals, investigative,

28   technical, secretarial, clerical, accountants, assistants, vendors, and other personnel who are

     engaged in assisting Counsel.
                                                         4
                              STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER
 1          2.19    Testimony: all depositions, declarations, or other testimony taken, provided, or

 2   used in this Action.

 3   3.     SCOPE

 4          The protections conferred by this Order cover not only Protected Material (as defined

 5   above), but also (1) any Information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies,

 6   excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any Testimony,

 7   conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material.

 8   However, the protections conferred by this Order do not cover: (a) any information that is in the

 9   public domain at the time of disclosure to a Receiving Party or becomes part of the public domain

10   after its disclosure to a Receiving Party as a result of publication not involving a violation of this

11   Order, including becoming part of the public record through trial or otherwise; and (b) any

12   information known to the Receiving Party prior to the disclosure or obtained by the Receiving

13   Party after the disclosure from a source who obtained the information lawfully and under no

14   obligation of confidentiality to the Designating Party. If the accuracy of information in the public

15   domain is confirmed only through the review of Protected Material, then that information shall be

16   considered to be in the public domain (and thus shall be defined as “Information”). For example,

17   unsubstantiated media speculation, rumors, or allegations that are later confirmed to be accurate

18   based on the content of Protected Material are not “public domain” information.

19          Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by a separate agreement or order.

20   4.     DURATION
21          Even after final disposition of this Action, the confidentiality obligations imposed by this

22   Order shall remain in effect unless a Producing Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order

23   otherwise directs. Final disposition shall be deemed to be the later of (1) dismissal of all claims

24   and defenses in this Action, with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment herein after the

25   completion and exhaustion of all appeals, re-hearings, remands, trials, or reviews of this Action,

26   including the time limits for filing any motions or applications for extension of time pursuant to

27   applicable law.

28

                                                        5
                             STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER
 1   5.     DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL

 2          5.1.    Exercise of Restraint and Care in Designating Material for Protection. Each Party

 3   or Non-Party that designates information or items for protection under this Order must take care

 4   to limit any such designation to specific material that qualifies under the appropriate standards.

 5   The Designating Party must endeavor to designate for protection only those parts of material,

 6   documents, items, or oral or written communications that qualify, so that, if feasible, other

 7   portions of the material, documents, items, or communications for which protection is not

 8   warranted are not swept unjustifiably within the ambit of this Order.

 9          Mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited, although the designation

10   of substantially all of a Party’s production of Documents as Protected Material, if otherwise

11   appropriate under this Order, will not render such designations improper. The Parties agree to

12   exercise good faith in responding to requests from a Requesting Party to de-designate material in

13   accordance with Section 6 below. Designations that are shown to be clearly unjustified or that

14   have been made for an improper purpose (e.g., to unnecessarily encumber or retard the case

15   development process or to impose unnecessary expenses and burdens on other parties) expose the

16   Designating Party to sanctions, just as disclosure of Protected Material in violation of this Order

17   would do.

18          If it comes to a Designating Party’s attention that information or items that it designated

19   for protection do not qualify for protection, that Designating Party must promptly notify all other

20   Parties that it is withdrawing the mistaken designation.

21          5.2.    Manner and Timing of Designations. Except as otherwise provided in this Order

22   or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, Discovery Material, Testimony, or other items that qualify

23   for protection under this Order must be clearly so designated before the material is disclosed or

24   produced. Designation in conformity with this Order requires:

25                  a.      For Information in documentary form (e.g., paper or electronic Documents,

26   but excluding transcripts of depositions or other pretrial or trial proceedings), that the Producing

27   Party affix the legend CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES

28   ONLY to each page that contains Protected Material. If only a portion or portions of the material

                                                       6
                             STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER
 1   on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected

 2   portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).

 3                  A Party or Non-Party that makes original Documents or materials available for

 4   inspection need not designate them for protection until after the inspecting Party has indicated

 5   which Documents it would like copied and produced. During the inspection and before the

 6   designation, all of the material made available for inspection shall be deemed CONFIDENTIAL or

 7   HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY. After the inspecting Party has

 8   identified the Documents it wants copied and produced, the Producing Party must determine which

 9   Documents, or portions thereof, qualify for protection under this Order. Then, before producing the

10   specified Documents, the Producing Party must affix the appropriate designation to each page that

11   contains Protected Material.

12                  b.      For Testimony given in deposition or in other pretrial proceedings, that the

13   Designating Party designate within 7 days of receipt of the final transcript the portions of Testimony

14   as to which protection is sought to and to specify the level of protection being asserted. Any

15   Testimony given in deposition or other pretrial proceedings shall be treated as HIGHLY

16   CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY until the end of that 7-day period following

17   receipt of the final transcript. After that period ends, only those portions of the Testimony that are

18   appropriately designated for protection consistent with the provisions of this Section 5.2(b) shall be

19   covered by the provision of this Order. A Designating Party may specify, at the deposition or until

20   the end of the 7-day period following receipt of the final transcript, that the entire transcript shall be

21   treated as HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY. To facilitate this Section

22   5.2(b), the Parties agree to ask the court-reporting service responsible for a deposition transcript to

23   complete the final transcript as quickly as possible.

24          Further, for Testimony given in deposition or in other pretrial proceedings, transcripts

25   containing Protected Material shall have an obvious legend on the title page that the transcript

26   contains Protected Material, and the title page shall be followed by a list of all pages (including line

27   numbers as appropriate) that have been designated as Protected Material and the level of protection

28   being asserted by the Designating Party. Pages of transcribed deposition Testimony or exhibits to

     depositions that reveal Protected Material must be separately bound by the court reporter and may
                                                        7
                             STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER
 1   not be disclosed to anyone except as permitted under this Order. The Designating Party shall

 2   inform the court reporter of these requirements.

 3                  c.      For Information produced in some form other than documentary and for any

 4   other tangible items, that the Producing Party affix in a prominent place on the exterior of the

 5   container or containers in which the Information or item is stored the legend CONFIDENTIAL or

 6   HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY. If only a portion or portions of the

 7   Information or item warrant protection, the Producing Party, to the extent practicable, shall identify

 8   the protected portion(s).

 9          5.3     Inadvertent Failures to Designate. If timely corrected, an inadvertent failure to

10   designate qualified information or items does not, standing alone, waive the Designating Party’s
11   right to secure protection under this Order for such material. If any Producing Party inadvertently
12   produces or discloses Protected Material without marking it with an appropriate designation, the
13   Producing Party or a Designating Party shall promptly notify the Receiving Party that the Protected
14   Material should be treated in accordance with the terms of the Stipulated Protective Order, and shall
15   forward appropriately stamped copies of the items in question. Within five days of the receipt of
16   the appropriately stamped copies of the items in question, the Receiving Party shall return or
17   destroy the previously unmarked versions of the items and all copies thereof, and, additionally, must
18   make all other reasonable efforts to assure that the material is treated in accordance with the
19   provisions of this Order. The inadvertent disclosure shall not be deemed a waiver of confidentiality,
20   and such designation shall be made promptly after the discovery of the inadvertent production or

21   disclosure.

22   6.     CHALLENGING CONFIDENTIALITY DESIGNATIONS1
23          6.1     Timing of Challenges. Any Party or Non-Party may challenge a confidentiality

24   designation at any time. Unless a prompt challenge to a Designating Party’s confidentiality

25   designation is necessary to avoid foreseeable, substantial unfairness, unnecessary economic

26   burdens, or a significant disruption or delay of the litigation, a Party does not waive its right to

27   1
       Under the Court’s Rules regarding Challenging Confidentiality Designations set forth in
28   Department 613’s Procedures for Complex Litigation, the Parties hereby stipulate to the Court’s
     language governing the process for any Party to challenge the confidentiality designations,
     reproduced herein as Section 6.
                                                        8
                             STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER
 1   challenge a confidentiality designation by electing not to mount a challenge promptly after the

 2   original designation is disclosed.

 3          6.2     Meet and Confer. The Challenging Party shall initiate the dispute-resolution

 4   process by providing written notice of the designations (by Bates number) it is challenging and

 5   generally describing the basis for the challenges. To avoid ambiguity as to whether a challenge

 6   has been made, the written notice must recite that the challenge to confidentiality is being made in

 7   accordance with this specific sub-section of the Protective Order. The Parties shall attempt to

 8   resolve each challenge in good faith and must begin the process by conferring directly (in voice to

 9   voice dialogue; other forms of communication are not sufficient) within 10 days of the date of

10   service of notice. In conferring, the Challenging Party must explain the basis for its belief that the

11   confidentiality designation was not proper and must give the Designating Party an opportunity to

12   review the designated material, to reconsider the circumstances, and, if no change in designation

13   is offered, to explain the basis for the chosen designation. A Challenging Party may proceed to

14   the next stage of the challenge process only if it has engaged in this meet and confer process first

15   or establishes that the Designating Party is unwilling to participate in the meet and confer process

16   in a timely manner.

17          6.3     Judicial Intervention. If the Parties cannot resolve a challenge without court

18   intervention through the procedure set forth above, they must hold an informal in-person
19   conference with the Court. If the Parties still cannot resolve the challenge, the Designating Party
20   shall file and serve a motion to retain confidentiality within 10 days of the informal in-person

21   conference. Each such motion must be accompanied by a competent declaration affirming that

22   the movant has complied with the meet and confer requirements imposed in the preceding sub-

23   section. Failure by the Designating Party to timely make such a motion shall automatically waive

24   the confidentiality designation for each challenged designation. In addition, the Challenging

25   Party may file a motion challenging a confidentiality designation at any time if there is good

26   cause for doing so, including a challenge to the designation of a deposition transcript or any

27   portions thereof. Any motion brought pursuant to this provision must be accompanied by a

28   competent declaration affirming that the movant has complied with the meet-and-confer

                                                       9
                             STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER
 1   requirement in the preceding sub-section or that the Designating Party is unwilling to participate

 2   in the meet-and-confer process in a timely manner.

 3             The burden of persuasion in any such challenge proceeding shall be on the Designating

 4   Party. The Court recommends that the Parties obtain a court reporter for the hearing on this

 5   motion. Frivolous challenges, and those made for an improper purpose (e.g., to harass or impose

 6   unnecessary expenses and burdens on other parties) may expose the Challenging Party to

 7   sanctions. The Party losing any motion concerning the confidentiality of materials will pay the

 8   successful Party’s attorney’s fees incurred in the making of or opposing the motion if the losing

 9   position was not substantially justified. Unless the Designating Party has waived the

10   confidentiality designation by failing to file a motion to retain confidentiality as described above,

11   all Parties shall continue to afford the material in question the level of protection to which it is

12   entitled under the Producing Party’s designation until the court rules on the challenge.

13   7.        ACCESS TO AND USE OF PROTECTED MATERIAL

14             7.1    Basic Principles. A Receiving Party may use Protected Material that is disclosed

15   or produced by another Party or by a Non-Party in connection with this case only for litigating or
16   attempting to settle this litigation, including through mediation. Such Protected Material may be
17   disclosed only to the categories of persons and under the conditions described in this Order.
18   When the litigation has been terminated, a Receiving Party must comply with the provisions of
19   Section 13 below (“Final Disposition”).
20             Protected Material must be stored and maintained by a Receiving Party at a location and

21   in a secure manner that ensures that access is limited to the persons authorized under this Order.

22             7.2    Disclosure of CONFIDENTIAL Information or Items. Unless otherwise ordered

23   by the Court or permitted in writing by the Designating Party, any Information or item designated

24   CONFIDENTIAL may be disclosed only to:

25                    a.     Counsel for the Receiving Party, as well as employees of said Counsel,

26   including Support Staff, to whom it is reasonably necessary to disclose the Information for this

27   Action.

28                    b.     The Parties, including the officers, directors, and employees of a Party if the

     Receiving Party’s Counsel determines in good faith that the officer, director, or employee’s
                                                        10
                              STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER
 1   assistance is reasonably necessary to the conduct of the Action in which the Information is

 2   disclosed.

 3                   c.     Counsel representing insurer or indemnitor of any Defendant, including the

 4   insurer’s or indemnitor’s legal team.

 5                   d.     Experts (as defined in this Order) of the Parties to whom disclosure is

 6   reasonably necessary for this Action and who have signed the “Acknowledgment and Agreement

 7   To Be Bound” (Exhibit A).

 8                   e.     The Court and its personnel.

 9                   f.     Court reporters and their staff.

10                   g.     Professional jury or trial consultants, mock jurors, and Professional Vendors

11   to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this litigation and who have signed the

12   “Acknowledgment and Agreement To Be Bound” (Exhibit A).

13                   h.     During their depositions, non-party witnesses and attorneys for non-party

14   witnesses, in the Action to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary, unless otherwise ordered by

15   the Court. The Designating Party shall obtain a signed “Acknowledgement and Agreement To be

16   Bound” (Exhibit A) at the deposition, unless otherwise agreed by the Designating Party or ordered

17   by the Court.

18                   i.     The author or recipient of a Document containing the Information or a

19   custodian or other person who otherwise possessed or knew the Information.

20                   j.     Mediators or arbitrators, and their support personnel, engaged by the Parties

21   for settlement purposes in this Action.

22                   k.     Other persons only by written consent of the Designating Party or upon order

23   of the Court and on such conditions as may be agreed or ordered.

24          7.2      Disclosure of HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

25   Information or Items. Except by further order by the Court, or by express written consent of

26   Counsel, Information and things designated HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES

27   ONLY in this Action by any Party or Non-Party may only be disclosed in accordance with the terms

28   of this Order to the persons identified in Section 7.2(a), (c)–(g), (i)–(k).

                                                        11
                             STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER
 1          7.3     Additional Provisions. Notwithstanding any other provisions in this Section 7 or the

 2   Order, and in light of the fact the parties are litigating bellwether cases, Lyft may designate

 3   Protected Material for production only to Plaintiffs’ Interim Lead Counsel, as identified in the

 4   Court’s November 9, 2020 “Order re Plaintiffs’ Interim Lead Counsel,” and any counsel

 5   representing a Plaintiff who has been selected for bellwether discovery.

 6   8.     PROTECTED MATERIAL SUBPOENAED OR ORDERED PRODUCED IN
            OTHER LITIGATION
 7
            If a Party is served with a subpoena or a court order issued in other litigation that compels
 8
     disclosure of any Information or items designated in this Action as CONFIDENTIAL or
 9
     HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY that Party must:
10
                    a.       Promptly notify in writing the Designating Party. Such notification shall
11
     include a copy of the subpoena or court order;
12
                    b.       Promptly notify in writing the party who caused the subpoena or order to
13
     issue in the other litigation that some or all of the material covered by the subpoena or order is
14
     subject to this Stipulated Protective Order. Such notification shall include a copy of this Stipulated
15
     Protective Order; and
16
                    c.       Cooperate with respect to all reasonable procedures sought to be pursued by
17
     the Designating Party whose Protected Material may be affected.
18
            If the Designating Party timely seeks a protective order or other applicable relief, the Party
19
     served with the subpoena or court order shall not produce any Information designated in this
20
     Action as CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
21
     before a determination authorizing such production by the court from which the subpoena or
22
     order issued, unless the Party has obtained the Designating Party’s permission. The Designating
23
     Party shall bear the burden and expense of seeking protection in that court of its Protected
24
     Material—and nothing in these provisions should be construed as authorizing or encouraging a
25
     Receiving Party in this Action to disobey a lawful directive from another court.
26
     9.     A NON-PARTY’S PROTECTED MAERIAL SOUGHT TO BE PRODUCED IN
27          THIS LITIGATION
28          Any Non-Party producing Information in this Action may designate Information as

     CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY under this
                                                       12
                             STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER
 1   Order. Such Information produced by Non-Parties in connection with this Action is protected by

 2   this Order. Nothing in these provisions should be construed as prohibiting a Non-Party from

 3   seeking additional protections.

 4          In the event that a Party is required, by a valid discovery request, to produce a Non-

 5   Party’s Protected Material in its possession, and the Party is subject to an agreement with the

 6   Non-Party not to produce the Non-Party’s Protected Information, then the Party shall:

 7                  a.      Promptly notify in writing the Requesting Party and the Non-Party that some

 8   or all of the Information requested is subject to a confidentiality agreement with a Non-Party;

 9                  b.      Promptly provide the Non-Party with a copy of the Stipulated Protective

10   Order in this Action, the relevant discovery request(s), and a reasonably specific description of the

11   Information requested; and

12                  c.      Make the Information requested available for inspection by the Non-Party.

13          If the Non-Party fails to object or seek a protective order from this Court within fourteen

14   (14) days of receiving the notice and accompanying information, the Receiving Party may

15   produce the Non-Party’s Confidential Information responsive to the discovery request. If the

16   Non-Party timely seeks a protective order or other applicable relief, the Receiving Party shall not

17   produce any Information in its possession or control that is subject to the confidentiality

18   agreement with the Non-Party before a determination authorizing such production by the Court.

19   Absent a Court order to the contrary, the Non-Party shall bear the burden and expense of seeking

20   protection in the Court of its Protected Material.

21   10.    UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF PROTECTED MATERIAL
22          If a Receiving Party learns that, by inadvertence or otherwise, it has disclosed Protected

23   Material to any person or in any circumstance not authorized under this Stipulated Protective

24   Order, the Receiving Party must promptly (a) notify in writing the Designating Party of the

25   unauthorized disclosures, (b) use its best efforts to retrieve all unauthorized copies of the

26   Protected Material, (c) inform the person or persons to whom unauthorized disclosures were

27   made of all the terms of this Order, and (d) request such person or persons to execute the

28   “Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound” that is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

                                                          13
                             STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER
 1   11.    INADVERTENT PRODUCTION OF PRIVILEGED MATERIAL

 2          11.1     Inadvertent Production of Privileged Material. The production or disclosure of

 3   Discovery Material by a Producing Party shall, to the maximum extent permitted by law, be

 4   governed by California law regarding the inadvertent production of Privileged Material. The

 5   procedure set forth below is intended to provide the Producing Party or any other Party purporting

 6   to hold a privilege with an efficient procedure for retrieving or “clawing back” inadvertently

 7   produced Privileged Material, subject to any resolution of any dispute over the privileged or

 8   protected status of the material, and for foreclosing any arguments of waiver. If there is a conflict

 9   between California law and the procedures in this Section 11, the procedures in this Section 11

10   shall govern.

11                   a.     If a Producing Party or any other Party purporting to hold a privilege has a

12   good-faith belief that Privileged Material has inadvertently been produced and promptly upon

13   discovery of the inadvertent production notifies all Parties in writing that Privileged Material was

14   disclosed, then, consistent with California law, the inadvertent production of Privileged Material

15   shall not be deemed a waiver. If a Receiving Party discovers the inadvertent production of

16   Privileged Material by a Producing Party, then, consistent with California law, it shall have a duty

17   to promptly upon discovery of the inadvertent production give the Producing Party written notice of

18   the inadvertent production of Privileged Material. The obligations of the Parties are those set forth

19   in California Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.285.

20                   b.     Upon receipt of notice of inadvertent disclosure of Privileged Material,