In Re: Lyft, Inc. Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
IN RE: LYFT, INC. PASSENGER
SEXUAL ASSAULT LITIGATION
Case No. 26-md-03171-RFL 	(LJC)
ORDER RESOLVING SCHEDULE TO
COMPLETE THE INGESTION OF
CUSTODIAL RECORDS AND
COMMENCE SEARCH TERM
VALIDATION
Re: Dkt. No. 457
On September 20, 2026, the Court determined that validation efforts required under the
parties’ ESI protocol includes not only validation of technology assisted review (TAR), but also
search terms used to cull document collections before applying TAR. Dkt No. 430. Now the
parties dispute when the search term validation should be conducted. Dkt No. 457. Lyft has
identified certain technological challenges to the record collection process and, on that basis,
contends that no precise deadlines should be set but has offered a variety of proposals wherein a
search term validation protocol would be deployed once. Having reviewed the parties’ discovery
letter, id., the Court is persuaded that Plaintiffs’ proposed schedule is closer to a schedule that will
move discovery along meaningfully without undue delay in search term validation.
The difficulty with Lyft’s proposal is that it creates the possibility that validation does not
occur until near the substantial-completion deadline, January 4, 2027, which undermines the utility
of the search term validation effort and reverses this Court’s earlier determination that search term
validation should not be delayed to that extent. Dkt. No. 430. Furthermore, Lyft is unwilling to
make any commitment as to when it can complete ingestion given the technical challenges that it
has identified. The Court notes that the January 4, 2027 substantial discovery deadline was set
Case 3:26-md-03171-RFL Document 461 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
several months ago, on May 29, 2026. Dkt. No. 178. In the JCCP summary provided by Lyft
there was no suggestion that the collection of records for the fifty-plus JCCP custodians was only
partial. Dkt. No. 44. It has not been disputed that JCCP custodians would also serve as custodians
in this MDL. To the extent that Lyft has been aware of the technical challenges to collecting
custodial records though Google Vault since at least the summer, see Dkt. No. 329 at 2, the time to
dedicate the resources necessary to meet the Court imposed discovery deadlines is now.
Turning to Plaintiffs’ proposal, it is confusing insofar as they propose that validation
commence on October 26, 2026, and ingestion must be completed little more than a week later—
no later than November 6, 2026. This timing suggests that Plaintiffs are similarly, if not equally,
interested as Lyft in having keyword validation be completed once. Given that validation once is
the optimal approach, Lyft shall complete ingestion of all custodial records no later than
November 6, 2026 and search term validation shall commence by November 10, 2026, unless the
parties jointly stipulate to alter these deadlines. On October 23 and 30, 2026, Lyft shall provide
status reports to Plaintiffs regarding its progress collecting and ingesting the custodial records
using the data fields that Plaintiffs have proposed, except where the Court has denied below
certain information sought by Plaintiffs. See Dkt. No. 457-2 at 7.
With respect to the proposed Keyword Validation Schedule & Protocol, for the reasons
Lyft states, which Plaintiffs did not respond to: Plaintiffs’ proposed redlines to Paragraph 2,
adding the phrase “including but not limited to” and the footnote language, is DENIED;
Plaintiffs’ additions to Paragraph 5 regarding extra days for Lyft to provide a privilege log is
DENIED; Plaintiffs’ addition of the final paragraph is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 9, 2026
LISA J. CISNEROS
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:26-md-03171-RFL Document 461 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 2