Estate of Silvia Manzo Velasco et al vs Uber Technologies Inc et al

Case Number

24CV03780

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 01/17/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion to Compel

Tentative Ruling

For all reasons discussed herein, the motion of plaintiffs for an order compelling Checkr, Inc., to produce its person or persons most knowledgeable regarding insurance and insurance policies for deposition and to produce documents responsive to the demand for production of documents accompanying the deposition notice, is continued to February 21, 2025. On or before February 7, 2025, plaintiffs and defendant Checkr, Inc., shall file and serve either joint or individual status reports in accordance with this ruling.

Background:

This action was originally filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco as case no. CGC-23-606780 entitled Estate of Silvia Manzo Velasco v. Uber Technologies et al. (the SF Action), and transferred to this Court on July 9, 2024.  

Court records, including those filed in the SF Action and transferred to this Court, reflect that on May 30, 2023, plaintiffs the Estate of Silvia Manzo Velasco (Silvia) by and through its successor in interest Ricardo Velasco (Ricardo), Ricardo, Juan Velasco (Juan), Ana Velasco (Ana), Kasandra Velasco (Kasandra), Monica Velasco (Monica), Jose Alvarado (Jose) by and through his guardian ad litem Ana, and Francisca Solis (Solis) (collectively, plaintiffs) filed their original complaint against defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. (Uber), Portier, LLC (Portier), Checkr, Inc. (Checkr), and Andrew Raymond Burgher (Burgher) (collectively, defendants), alleging four causes of action: (1) negligence (against all defendants); (2) negligent hiring, supervision, or retention (against Uber, Portier, and Checkr); (3) wrongful death (against all defendants); and (4) survival action (against all defendants). (Note: Due to common familial surnames, the Court will refer to plaintiffs by their first names where necessary. No disrespect is intended.)

On June 6, 2023, plaintiffs filed in the SF Action a first amended complaint (the FAC) against defendants alleging the same four causes of action described above. As alleged in the operative FAC:

Ricardo is the husband of Silvia, and Juan, Ana, Kasandra, and Monica are Silvia’s children. (FAC, ¶¶ 6-10.) Jose is Silvia’s biological grandson, and Solis is the mother of Silvia. (Id. at ¶¶ 11-12.)

Uber operates a Transportation Network Company which provides transportation options and vehicles for users of its services through an online application (the Uber App). (FAC, ¶ 13.) Portier is a wholly owned subsidiary of Uber that runs the Delivery Network Company arm of Uber and that does business as Uber Eats, a division of Uber that provides on-demand food delivery services through an “Uber Eats App” mobile phone application. (Id. at ¶¶ 14 & 16.) Uber and Portier (collectively, the Uber Parties) employ drivers through the Uber App and Uber Eats App. (Id. at ¶ 16.) Portier generates leads for Uber Eats drivers through the Uber Eats App to facilitate the delivery of food to customers, and holds the insurance certificate for insurance carried by Uber. (Id. at ¶¶ 16 & 18.)

The Uber Parties perform background investigations of drivers through Checkr, which is a third-party investigative consumer reporting agency. (FAC, ¶¶ 19 & 52.) The background checks which the Uber Parties outsource to Checkr are based on unverified information submitted by prospective drivers either through the Uber Eats App or the website, and do not require biometric identifiers such as a fingerprint. (Id. at ¶ 46.) As a result, the background checks performed by Checkr on behalf of the Uber Parties fail to uncover criminal conduct and driving histories due to Uber and Portier’s self-imposed requirement for expediency. (Ibid.)

Burgher entered into a Technology Services Agreement with the Uber Parties in which Burgher agreed that Burgher’s transportation of passengers or delivery of food for Uber and Portier furthered an employer-employee relationship. (FAC, ¶ 61.) On October 26, 2021, Silvia was the passenger in a vehicle which, suddenly and without warning, was violently struck by a vehicle operated by Burgher. (Id. at ¶ 73.) At the time of the incident, Burgher was working as a commercial driver for Uber and Uber Eats. (Id. at ¶ 74.) Prior to the incident, Burgher had been operating his vehicle at speeds up to 120 miles per hour while intoxicated. (Id. at ¶¶ 75-76.)

Though the Uber Parties employed Checkr to investigate Burgher’s criminal history and motor vehicle records, Checkr failed to identify prior criminal convictions of Burgher which showed, among other things, that Burgher was on probation for a second “DUI” conviction until October 31, 2015, within the seven years prior to the background check performed by Checkr in connection with Burgher’s potential employment with the Uber Parties. (Id. at ¶ 82.)

On December 15, 2023, Uber and Portier separately answered the FAC, generally denying its allegations and asserting affirmative defenses. Burgher filed an answer to the FAC on January 16, 2024, generally denying its allegations and asserting affirmative defenses. Checkr answered the FAC on February 22, 2024, also generally denying its allegations and asserting affirmative defenses.

On July 26, 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion for an order compelling Checkr (the Checkr Set One Motion) to serve further responses and to produce documents responsive to plaintiffs’ set one demand for production of documents (the Checkr Set One Demand), which was opposed by Checkr.

On September 13, 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion for an order compelling Checkr (the Checkr Set Two Motion) to serve further responses and produce documents responsive to plaintiffs’ set two demand for production of documents (the Checkr Set Two Demand), which was also opposed by Checkr.

On September 26, 2024, plaintiffs separately filed two motions for orders compelling Uber and Portier (respectively, the Uber Set Two Motion and the Portier Set Two Motion) to each serve further responses and produce documents responsive to plaintiffs’ set two demands for production of documents (respectively, the Uber Set Two Demand and the Portier Set Two Demand), which were separately opposed by Uber and Portier.

On September 30, 2024, the Uber Parties filed a motion (the Uber Protective Order Motion) for a protective order which Checkr joined, and which was opposed by plaintiffs.

On October 1, 2024, plaintiffs separately filed three motions (individually, the Uber MSA Motion, the Checkr MSA Motion, and the Portier MSA Motion, and collectively, the MSA Motions) to compel the depositions of the most qualified individuals of, respectively, Uber, Checkr, and Portier as to a Master Services Agreement executed on October 16, 2020 (the MSA), and to produce documents at the deposition. The MSA Motions were separately opposed by Uber, Checkr, and Portier.

On October 3, 2024, Checkr filed a motion for a protective order (the Checkr Protective Order Motion), which was opposed by plaintiffs.

On October 4, 2024, the Uber Parties filed a second motion for a protective order (the Second Uber Protective Order Motion), which was also opposed by plaintiffs.

On October 11, 2024, plaintiffs separately filed three motions (the Uber Insurance Motion, the Checkr Insurance Motion, and the Portier Insurance Motion, and collectively, the Insurance Motions) for orders compelling the deposition of the person or persons most knowledgeable of, respectively, Uber, Checkr, and Portier as to applicable insurance policies, and to produce documents at the deposition. The Insurance Motions were separately opposed by Uber, Checkr, and Portier.

On November 8, 2024, the Court entered a Minute Order (the November 8 Order) granting a motion for trial preference filed by plaintiffs on October 1, 2024, and setting a jury trial for February 13, 2025. (See also Nov. 14, 2024, Trial Call Order.) In addition, the Court denied without prejudice the Uber Set Two Motion and the Portier Set Two Motion based on the filing by the Uber Parties of supplemental responses, and continued the hearing on the Uber Protective Order Motion, the Checkr Protective Order Motion, and the Second Uber Protective Order Motion, to November 22, 2024, to permit the parties to further meet and confer with respect to the terms of an appropriate protective order. The Court also continued the hearing on plaintiffs’ remaining discovery motions further detailed above, and directed the parties to submit status reports setting forth issues which the parties have resolved and issues which remain.

On November 22, 2024, the Court entered a Minute Order (the November 22 Order), granting the Uber Protective Order Motion, the Checkr Protective Order Motion, and the Second Uber Protective Order Motion, and directing the Uber Parties and Checkr to submit for the Court’s signature a proposed copy of the Los Angeles Model Stipulation and Protective Order – Confidential Designation Only (the Protective Order), in the form provided by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

In addition, the Court continued the hearing on the Checkr Set One Motion, the Checkr Set Two Motion, the MSA Motions, and the Insurance Motions to December 6, 2024, to permit sufficient time for the parties to resolve any remaining discovery considering the Court’s ruling, and directed the parties to submit status reports setting forth what, if any, issues remain with respect to the Checkr Set One Motion, the Checkr Set Two Motion, the MSA Motions, and the Insurance Motions.

The Protective Order was submitted and entered on November 26, 2024.

At the December 6, 2024, continued hearing on the Checkr Set One Motion, the Checkr Set Two Motion, the MSA Motions, and the Insurance Motions, the Court granted plaintiffs’ request to withdraw their motion for trial preference, without prejudice, and vacated the February 13, 2025, trial date. (Dec. 6, 2024, Minute Order.) Further, the Court continued the hearing on the Checkr Set One Motion, the Checkr Set Two Motion, the MSA Motions, and the Insurance Motions, to December 13, 2024, to permit the Court sufficient time to review status reports that were filed after the deadline prescribed in the November 22 Order. (Ibid.)

On December 13, 2024, the Court entered a Minute Order (the December 13 Order) granting the Checkr Set One Motion and the Checkr Set Two Motion, and ordering Checkr to provide verified further responses in accordance with that ruling. Further, the Court granted the MSA Motions, the Uber Insurance Motion, and the Portier Insurance Motion, and ordered Checkr to produce its person most knowledgeable or “PMK” regarding the MSA for deposition on December 20, 2024, and the Uber Parties to produce their PMK regarding the MSA, insurance, and insurance policies for deposition on January 14, 2025.

Pursuant to the December 13 Order, the Court continued the hearing on the Checkr Insurance Motion to January 17, 2025, and ordered plaintiffs and Checkr to meet and confer to mutually select a date for the continued deposition of the PMK of Checkr regarding insurance and insurance policies. Further, the Court ordered the parties to, on or before January 3, 2025, file joint or individual status reports setting forth their efforts to meet and confer and which, if any, issues remain to be determined with respect to the Checkr Insurance Motion.

On December 20, 2024, the Court entered an order that the deposition of Checkr’s PMK regarding the MSA may proceed instead on January 13, 2025. (Dec. 20, 2024, Minute Order.)

On January 3, 2025, plaintiffs submitted a status report signed by their counsel and counsel for Checkr, stating that parties have met and conferred regarding the deposition of the PMK of Checkr regarding insurance and insurance policies, and have agreed to continue the remainder of the deposition on January 31, 2025. (Jan. 3, 2025, Status Report at p. 2.) Though the parties state that there exist no outstanding issues with respect to the Checkr Insurance Motion, plaintiffs request that the Court continue the hearing to a date after January 31, 2025. (Ibid.)

Analysis:

Considering the information provided in the January 3, 2025, status report filed by plaintiffs, including the parties’ agreement to proceed with a continued deposition on January 31, 2025, as further detailed above, the Court will continue the hearing on the Checkr Insurance Motion. The Court will further order plaintiffs and Checkr to file joint or individual status reports regarding the status of the deposition of the PMK of Checkr scheduled to proceed on January 31, 2025, and which, if any, issues remain to be determined with respect to the Checkr Insurance Motion.