Quick answer: A TNC discovery roadmap for Uber and Lyft cases should cover all 24 categories across four families: driver and relationship; data and monitoring; safety apparatus; and corporate and regulatory. Each category — driver history, GPS and telematics, complaints, platform matching, safety promises, US Safety Reports, insurance, corporate structure, CPUC permit, and prior pleading admissions — supports one or more of the seven liability theories. The goal is a record that proves multiple theories at once, not just one.
Primary source: California Public Utilities Commission TNC information.
Bottom line. The seven-theory framework demands discovery that is broader and more technical than most personal-injury practitioners are accustomed to running. The TNCs collect enormous volumes of data about their drivers, their riders, and their platforms, and they hide the most damning material in the categories they assume nobody will demand. The 24-category roadmap below is the antidote. Each category supports one or more of the seven liability theories, and many support several.
The four families
| Family | Categories | What it produces |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Driver and Relationship | (1)–(6) | The incident, driver file, background checks, the vehicle, the contractual relationship, training |
| 2. Data and Monitoring | (7)–(12) | GPS, telematics, sensors, driver app, CMT, algorithms, ratings, fatigue |
| 3. Safety Apparatus | (13)–(18) | Complaints, prior accidents, deactivation, safety features, safety representations, safety statistics |
| 4. Corporate and Regulatory | (19)–(24) | Corporate structure, CPUC permit, statutory position, insurance, payments, post-incident conduct |
The list is pulled from the Rutkovitz workflow and represents the universe of information that a fully developed TNC liability record should contain.
Family 1: Driver and Relationship
(1) The incident
Trip records, internal communications, post-incident investigation, ride-share data, communications with the plaintiff and driver. Supports: all theories; baseline factual record.
(2) Driver file and onboarding
Complete platform history, application materials, qualifications, identity verification. Supports: negligent retention and direct negligence.
(3) Background checks
Checkr screening, motor vehicle records, criminal history, continuous monitoring, DMV Pull Notice enrollment. Supports: negligent hiring and retention.
(4) The vehicle
Inspection records, insurance verification, registration, prior vehicle-condition complaints. Supports: direct negligence, CPUC compliance.
(5) Contracts and classification
Platform Access Agreement, Community Guidelines, Rider Terms, and the TNC's stated independent contractor basis. Supports: agency, ostensible agency, Tunkl exculpatory-clause analysis, and Prop 22 analysis.
(6) Training
Road Safety Video Course, training materials, completion records, quizzes. Supports: negligent undertaking and agency analysis.
Family 2: Data and Monitoring
(7) GPS, telematics, and sensors
Raw GPS data, accelerometer, gyroscope, hard-braking and harsh-acceleration events, retention periods. The platform's own data often establishes the driver's pattern of dangerous driving before the incident.
(8) Driver app features
Navigation, speed alerts, Driving Insights dashboard, post-trip reports. Supports: direct negligence and undertaking.
(9) Cambridge Mobile Telematics
CMT contracts, Driving Insights methodology, score history, Advantage Mode. Critical in cases where the TNC contracted with CMT for driving-behavior scoring.
(10) Algorithmic systems
Matching algorithm, fare calculation, surge pricing, performance evaluation, automated deactivation triggers. Supports: § 5354 "approval or consent" and ostensible agency.
(11) Rating system
Star methodology, two-way rating, minimum thresholds, complete driver history. Supports: negligent retention.
(12) Driver fatigue and hours
Seven-day and twenty-four-hour activity logs, fatigue policies, continuous-driving periods. Supports: direct negligence; CPUC compliance.
Family 3: Safety Apparatus
(13) Complaints, tags, and feedback
All rider reports by category, removal requests, customer support records. The single most important category for negligent retention and § 1714 direct negligence.
(14) Prior accidents and RideCheck activations
All motor vehicle incidents, near misses, RideCheck activations, internal review outcomes. Supports: retention and direct negligence.
(15) Deactivation and account review
Suspensions, safety reviews, flagging thresholds, automated triggers. Establishes that the TNC had the authority and the data to remove the driver and chose not to.
(16) Safety features
RideCheck, S-RAD, PIN verification, Audio Record, In-App 911, ID Check, and whether triggered in the case at issue. Supports: undertaking and the institutional-conduct record.
(17) Safety representations
The 99.9% claim, US Safety Reports, Community Guidelines undertakings. Supports: negligent undertaking.
(18) Safety data and statistics
Total accidents, total trips, correlation studies, the specific driver versus average KPIs. Supports: direct negligence and undertaking; powerful in front of a jury.
Family 4: Corporate and Regulatory
(19) Corporate structure
Which entity holds the permit, which entity contracted with the driver, which entity contracted with the rider, which entity has deactivation authority. Critical for naming the correct defendants and defeating shell-game arguments.
(20) CPUC permit and decisions
The TNC permit itself, Decisions 13-09-045, 14-04-022, 14-11-043, any enforcement actions or amendments. Supports: § 5354, common carrier, and Secci theories.
(21) Statutory position
The TNC's own pleading positions and admissions on Proposition 22 (Bus. & Prof. Code § 7451), PUC § 5354 imputation, and common-carrier duty (Civ. Code § 2100). Lock the TNC into prior inconsistent positions.
(22) Insurance
Three-period coverage program, carrier identity, policy limits, premiums, and any documents addressing § 5433(f) above-policy exposure. Critical to defeating the $1 million ceiling argument.
(23) Fare, payment, and incentives
Commission structure, surge pricing, Quest bonuses, performance incentives. Establishes control indicia to rebut the Borello detour.
(24) Post-incident conduct
Actions taken with respect to the driver, whether deactivation was tied to injury severity versus complaint history, and any internal correspondence about the case at issue. Often produces the most damaging single document in the file.
Discovery-to-theory mapping (quick reference)
| Theory | Priority categories |
|---|---|
| § 5354 imputation | (1), (5), (10), (19), (20), (21), (22) |
| Common carrier nondelegable duty | (1), (5), (6), (16), (17), (20) |
| Secci regulated hirer | (5), (10), (15), (19), (20), (23) |
| Ostensible agency | (5), (10), (11), (17) |
| Direct negligence (§ 1714) | (7), (8), (10), (13), (14), (15), (17), (18) |
| Negligent retention (CACI 426) | (2), (3), (7), (9), (11), (13), (14), (15) |
| Negligent undertaking (CACI 450) | (6), (16), (17), (18) |
| § 5433(f) coverage | (22) |
Cover every category. The TNCs hide the most damning evidence in categories they assume nobody will demand. The list above is the antidote.
The sample toolkit (referenced in the master playbook)
The firm's TNC matters have produced a toolkit of sample pleadings and discovery materials adapted from real cases. Each sample is a starting point; each must be modified for the specific facts, parties, complaint history, and procedural posture of your case before filing or service.
- Sample Complaint pleading all seven liability theories. Drafts each cause of action with the elements and supporting authority.
- Sample MSJ Opposition built around § 5354. Walks through the four elements, the Pears straw man, the § 1759 Covalt analysis, the § 2106 private right of action, and the Prop 22 framing.
- Sample Special Interrogatories. Targeted at categories (5), (10), (13), (15), (19), (20), (22), and (24).
- Sample Request for Production. Reaches categories (1), (2), (3), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (13), (14), (15), and (16).
- Sample PMQ Deposition Notice. Topics covering categories (10), (13), (15), (16), (17), (19), (20), (21), and (22). The witness deposed in Rutkovitz confirmed under oath that without the TNC permit the company "would not have been in business that day" — a single line of testimony with disproportionate trial value.
To request the toolkit for use in your case, contact The Homampour Law Firm at (323) 252-7921 or [email protected].
Practitioner playbook
- Serve discovery early and broad. Day-one written discovery should cover all 24 categories at threshold scope.
- Use the theory-to-category map to defend each request against undue-burden objections. Every category supports a pleaded theory.
- Reserve PMQ depositions until after written discovery. The TNC's documents will reveal the topic gaps you need to depose into.
- Document the discovery refusals on the record. A judge or arbitrator who sees the TNC withholding the safety data will weight credibility accordingly.
- Build the corporate-structure record up front. Category (19) is the hardest to recover from if missed. Multiple Uber entities, intercompany agreements, permit-holder shell-games — all need to be sorted by the time of the MSJ.
See also
- Hub: The Seven-Theory Framework
- PUC § 5354 — Statutory Imputation Without Employment
- The $1 Million Coverage Myth + Prop 51 Single Tortfeasor
- Negligent Retention of Unfit TNC Drivers (CACI 426)
- Direct Negligence Against Uber/Lyft (§ 1714; Kuciemba)
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the 24 categories of TNC discovery?
The categories fall into four families: (1) Driver and Relationship — incident, driver file, background checks, vehicle, contracts, training; (2) Data and Monitoring — GPS, app, CMT, algorithm, ratings, fatigue; (3) Safety Apparatus — complaints, prior accidents, deactivation, safety features, representations, statistics; (4) Corporate and Regulatory — corporate structure, CPUC permit, statutory position, insurance, payments, post-incident conduct.
Which discovery category is most important for negligent retention?
Category 13 — complaints, tags, and feedback. All rider reports by category, removal requests, and customer support records. The TNCs collect this data in real time and have unilateral deactivation authority to act on it.
What is the role of Cambridge Mobile Telematics in TNC discovery?
Cambridge Mobile Telematics provides Driving Insights scoring to at least one major TNC. CMT contracts, scoring methodology, score history, and Advantage Mode records are critical evidence of pre-incident driver risk in any case where the TNC has used CMT for behavior scoring.
Which category supports defeating the $1 million coverage cap argument?
Category 22 — insurance. The three-period coverage program, carrier identity, policy limits, premiums, and any documents addressing § 5433(f) above-policy exposure.
How do you authenticate the CPUC permit in discovery?
Through a request for admission, a custodian declaration, or a CPUC public-records request. The Uber permit is TCP0038150-P; the Lyft permit is TCP 32513. The permit incorporates CPUC Decisions 13-09-045, 14-04-022, and 14-11-043 by reference.
Attorney advertising — information only. This page discusses legal doctrine and case outcomes for educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Every case is fact-specific. Contact The Homampour Law Firm at +1-323-658-8077 or [email protected] to discuss your matter with a licensed California attorney.