The standards governing privilege review for this multi-district litigation have been set forth in multiple orders of Magistrate Judge Cisneros. See Dkts. 1908, 2005, 2168.

Pursuant to Master Order No. 3, Uber produced 143 documents associated with custodian Katy McDonald for in camera review. The Master determined that 126 of the 143 documents were privileged in whole or in part and four were not privileged. The Master also ordered Uber to provide the redacted versions of 12 documents which were inadvertently not provided to plaintiffs and ordered additional information regarding one document.

After Uber produced the 12 redacted documents, plaintiffs withdrew their challenge to 11 of the 12 documents. Uber claimed privilege over the remaining document and provided additional briefing. Uber raised one objection to the Master’s determinations and provided additional briefing regarding another document for which it was ordered to provide such information. Upon consideration of Uber’s submissions and further in camera review, Uber’s request for relief regarding the three documents at issue was granted.

Plaintiffs raised a new challenge to one document that the Master had ordered Uber to produce with redactions. Following the Master’s further review and the parties’ meet and confer, Uber re-produced this document with revised redactions.

Accordingly, the Master has determined that 129 of the 143 documents associated with custodian Katy McDonald are privileged in whole or in part and three are not privileged. The remaining 11 documents did not require a determination.[1] 

More specifically, of the 143 documents submitted to the Master, 61 documents were privileged in whole, 48 documents contained appropriate redactions of privileged material by Uber, 20 documents were ordered to be re-produced with redactions or revised redactions, three documents were not privileged, and 11 documents ultimately did not require a determination.