In the case In re Uber Techs., Inc. Passenger Sexual Assault Litig., No. 23-md-03084-CRB (LJC) (N.D. Cal. March 3, 2025), California Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros addressed several disputes between the parties related to the handling of hyperlinked files, ordering the parties to meet and confer regarding the hyperlinked files disputes.

Case Discussion and Judge’s Ruling

In this multi-district litigation (MDL) involving allegations that Uber failed to implement appropriate safety precautions to protect passengers which led to alleged incidents of sexual assault or harassment by drivers using the Uber application, the Court had previously ruled on several disputes including the handling of hyperlinked files in April 2024.

The parties filed a Joint Letter raising several issues related to hyperlinks in Uber’s document production and the Court heard argument at a Discovery Status Conference on February 27, 2025. As Judge Cisneros noted:

“In this litigation it has been established that it is technologically feasible for Uber to produce contemporaneous versions of Google Drive files (Google Docs, Sheets, etc.) stored in the normal Google Drive cloud storage system when linked in an email, but it is not technologically feasible for Uber to automate the production of contemporaneous versions when Gmail messages and hyperlinked Google Drive files have transitioned to the Google Vault storage system. At least for Google Drive hyperlinked email attachments, the ESI Protocol requires Uber to provide metadata linking the hyperlinked document to the email where it is referenced…The lesson from the Court’s prior order, which bears on the current dispute, is that while attachments are broadly defined to include hyperlinks, the production of all hyperlinked documents is not required in light of the pervasive technical challenges.”

The issues included:

Hyperlinks to Non-Google Drive Documents

Plaintiffs sought at least metadata, and potentially the production of underlying documents, for hyperlinks referencing resources other than Google Drive documents. Uber contended that this was not required by the ESI Protocol, which focused on Google Drive hyperlinked attachments, while Plaintiffs argued that Uber had an obligation to provide sufficient metadata to establish parent-child relationships between documents and their attachments. Uber also presented evidence that producing hyperlinked non-Google Drive documents at scale was not technologically feasible. Plaintiffs relied on an ESI Protocol provision requiring Defendants to use collection and processing methods that preserved attachment associations and another provision mandating that document production retain the URLs of hyperlinks, including hidden URLs embedded in text. At the February 27, 2025, Discovery Status Conference, Uber represented that it had complied with this requirement, and Plaintiffs did not dispute that assertion.

Judge Cisneros stated: “Even if the ESI Protocol could be read as requiring metadata, beyond the URL for hyperlinks to non–Google Drive documents, there is no obligation where it is technologically infeasible for Uber to do so at scale. Uber cannot use a method of collection and processing that preserves a certain metadata relationship, if the method does not exist. Furthermore, it is not clear what metadata fields Plaintiffs seek, and which metadata fields Uber must provide under the ESI Protocol for hyperlinked non-Google Drive files that can be collected and produced by Uber in an automated fashion, if any.” So, for hyperlinks that Plaintiffs believed are particularly relevant, she ordered Uber to identify documents by Bates number requested by Plaintiffs if already produced, or produce it if not already produced and not privileged or protected from disclosure.

Hyperlinks Within Non–Google Email Documents

Plaintiffs contended that Uber had not been producing documents or metadata (other than URLs) for hyperlinks appearing in documents other than emails sent through the Google Gmail platform. Uber acknowledged that the ESI Protocol required it to produce hyperlinked documents appearing in communications. Even if the ESI Protocol required the production of documents hyperlinked in non-communication documents, Uber presented undisputed evidence that this was not feasible using Google Vault or a third-party tool. Plaintiffs had not presented evidence demonstrating the technological feasibility of automating the production of hyperlinks within non-Google emails or chats, though one of Uber’s declarants noted that Microsoft Purview facilitated the collection of linked documents as part of a message collection. However, Plaintiffs did not appear to seek collection of Microsoft emails or other Microsoft messages. So, Judge Cisneros stated: “If it has not already done so, Uber shall produce documents hyperlinked in Google chat messages, and related metadata to the extent feasible.”

Email Threading

The ESI Protocol required treating each email as a distinct document rather than allowing the production of consolidated email threads. Plaintiffs argued that, although Uber acknowledged its obligation to produce all emails within a thread, it repeatedly failed to produce the earliest emails, as well as hyperlinked documents and hyperlink metadata, despite their relevance and discoverability. Uber, however, maintained that it was not required to produce all emails in a thread unless they were independently relevant or found in a designated custodian’s files, and the ESI Protocol did not mandate otherwise.

Plaintiffs contended that some earlier emails withheld were relevant and should have been produced, which required a fact- and context-specific analysis that counsel could resolve for disputed documents. If the parties required Court intervention for specific relevancy disputes, they could raise them through a separate joint letter. Even when Uber did not separately produce an earlier email, the later produced emails often quoted content from earlier messages, but Uber had not been producing documents or metadata (other than URLs) for hyperlinks appearing in that quoted text. Uber asserted that it treated such links similarly to traditional attachments, which often were not included in replies to the original message with an attachment. This was often, but not always, the case for email replies, whereas forwarded email threads frequently retained such links.

Judge Cisneros stated: “Can a hyperlink within an earlier email be considered the equivalent of an attachment to a later email that quotes the earlier email? Under some circumstances, perhaps—but the question does not have a clear, universal answer, and the ESI Protocol does not speak to this issue directly. Once again, the Court concludes that, at this stage of the case, a process of handling such issues by request is appropriate under the same framework discussed above.”

In each case, Judge Cisneros also ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding the hyperlinked files disputes that remained.

So, what do you think? Do you agree with the court’s decision to order the parties to meet and confer regarding the hyperlinked files disputes that remained? Or should it have resolved them? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant, an Affinity partner of eDiscovery Today.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.