⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Ninth Circuit considers whether Uber can reclaim documents it has already shared with opposing lawyers. Passenger sexual-assault lawsuits against Uber are being handled together for pretrial work in multidistrict litigation, or MDL. Selected test trials are called bellwethers. During discovery, the exchange of evidence, Uber marked documents as protected by attorney-client privilege. That privilege protects certain confidential lawyer-client communications. Following a court-directed review, Uber removed some privilege markings and produced the documents. It later asked to reclaim 42 documents, saying they still contained protected legal communications. That request is called a clawback. A court-appointed special master refused to allow it for these re-reviewed documents. Federal Evidence Rule 502 D allows a court to order that disclosure does not itself waive privilege. The dispute is how that protection applies after the earlier privilege review, not whether all 42 documents have already been proven privileged. Uber seeks mandamus, an extraordinary court order intervening before an ordinary final appeal. Michael Huston of Sullivan and Cromwell, for Uber, will argue that it deserves an opportunity to show the documents are protected. Samuel Issacharoff, for the passenger plaintiffs, will defend the court's authority to bring this review process to an end. This hearing concerns evidence, not a decision on the sexual-assault claims themselves.

Uber Technologies, Inc., et al. v. US District Court for the Northern District of California (No. 26-2390) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 28, 2026.