(The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a

columnist for Reuters.)

By Jenna Greene

Nov 25 (Reuters) - As lawsuits continue to pile up

against Uber Technologies ( UBER ) from passengers who allege they were

sexually assaulted by the ridesharing service's drivers,

plaintiffs' lawyers are pushing for what they see as a quick and

easy way to help gather evidence in the sprawling multidistrict

litigation.

What if they just open their file cabinets?

Three plaintiffs' lawyers have sought the court's

blessing to use documents, deposition and hearing testimony

already in their possession -- material that they acquired in

past lawsuits against Uber involving claims ranging from pay

violations to wrongful death that's designated as confidential

--in the sexual assault MDL now pending in San Francisco federal

court.

In effect, they want the court's permission to produce

documents to themselves.

The unusual requests are the latest in a series of discovery

fights that underscore the litigation's high stakes. In the past

13 months, the MDL has grown from 22 cases at its inception to

include more than 1,400 claims by people across the country who

say they were sexually assaulted or harassed by Uber drivers.

The plaintiffs allege Uber failed to conduct adequate

background checks on its drivers or to implement appropriate

safety measures. Asserting negligence, product liability, fraud

and misrepresentation, they say the company is vicariously

liable for the acts of its drivers, including assault, rape and

false imprisonment.

An Uber spokesperson in a statement said that the company

cannot comment on pending litigation but is "deeply committed to

the safety of all users on the Uber platform."

In its latest safety report covering the years 2021-2022,

Uber said that 99.9% of trips were completed without any type of

reported safety incident.

The co-lead plaintiffs' lawyers -- Rachel Abrams of Peiffer

Wolf Carr Kane Conway & Wise; Sarah London of Lieff

Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein; and Roopal Luhana of Chaffin

Luhana -- in a statement said they "are continuing to press

ahead to gather the evidence to build our case."

Just over a year ago, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict

Litigation centralized the sexual assault cases. In a petition

now pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Uber

is challenging the move as improper, arguing the cases are too

different to group together, and also that Uber's ( UBER ) terms of use

bar plaintiffs from seeking an MDL.

In the meantime, the parties have butted heads repeatedly

over discovery.

The plaintiffs' over-arching concern in court filings is

that they won't get the full trove of responsive documents from

Uber, either because the company hasn't retained all the

relevant material or is improperly withholding documents by

designating them as privileged.

It's one reason they want permission from the court for

co-counsel to share information from past cases otherwise bound

by protective orders.

For example, Bret Stanley, a member of the 14-lawyer

plaintiffs' steering committee, said in a court filing last week

that he has "highly relevant" information obtained from prior

driver classification and wage lawsuits detailing how Uber

manages and controls its drivers.

If he's permitted to share the material, the plaintiffs'

team can "cross-check the completeness" of what Uber provided,

he said in a declaration. The alternative would be to "pretend"

the documents in his office don't exist, leaving the plaintiffs

"out of luck" if Uber hasn't retained the records.

Likewise, Corrie Yackulic, who previously sued Uber on

behalf of surviving family members of a driver who was carjacked

and killed, in court papers last week said she has relevant

information on how Uber tracks, analyzes and categorizes safety

data.

Bonus: It won't cost Uber a penny for either lawyer to

produce the documents, since they've already got them on hand.

But Uber, which is represented in the MDL by a small army of

lawyers from firms including Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &

Garrison; and Shook, Hardy & Bacon, has called such attempts an

improper "end run" around normal discovery procedures.

Plaintiffs "must do their own work" and ask Uber directly for

the information, defense lawyers say.

They argue there's no reason for plaintiffs to seek

confidential deposition testimony or documents from opposing

counsel in other cases "unless the goal is to improperly prevent

Uber from having any ability to object or review the discovery

for responsiveness."

So far, U.S. Magistrate Lisa Cisneros has not been

persuaded.

In July, she approved the first subpoena allowing

plaintiffs' steering committee member Sara Peters to share

information from her prior litigation against Uber.

Peters represented a Jane Doe who alleged she was raped by a

former Uber driver who had two separate complaints for sexually

assaulting passengers. Peters' documents concerned the

prevalence of sexual assault by Uber drivers, user perception of

Uber safety and Uber's ( UBER ) policies for handling reports of sexual

assault.

According to the plaintiffs, Uber turned over limited and

incomplete material from the case, omitting, for example,

deposition transcripts.

In denying Uber's ( UBER ) motion to quash the subpoena, Cisneros

wrote that the sought-after material involved testimony from

Uber employees on "highly relevant topics."

Nothing in the protective order "precludes any other court

from ordering production" of the documents in another

litigation, she wrote. The plaintiffs "are not required to

exhaust party discovery before seeking discovery from

nonparties."

Stay tuned. The first bellwether trials before Senior U.S.

District Judge Charles Breyer could begin later next year.