On August 16, 2026 the United States District Court for the Northern District of California received sworn statements that attorneys for Uber Technologies were the targets of death threats. The court’s acknowledgment expands Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1654 to cover attorney safety in civil multidistrict litigation. Defense counsel in the Uber sexual‑assault MDL now has a procedural avenue to seek court‑ordered security measures.

Full News Breakdown

A New York Times article criticizing Uber’s deposition tactics prompted the firm’s lawyers to report intimidation to the bench. Uber’s counsel argued that the threats impeded representation, while plaintiffs maintained that existing criminal statutes were sufficient. Judge Charles Breyer took the allegations under advisement and did not issue an immediate order.

• Case Name: In re Uber Sexual‑Assault MDL

• Court: United States District Court, Northern District of California

• Panel: Judge Charles Breyer, Senior District Judge

• Date: August 16, 2026

• Citation: No. 23‑2026‑MDL (N.D. Cal.)

• Statutes Cited: 18 U.S.C. § 875 (threatening communications); 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (protective orders); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)

• Key Provisions: § 1654(a); Rule 26(c)(1)

• Primary Legal Issue: Whether a civil court may issue protective orders to safeguard counsel from death threats

• Petitioner Arguments: Uber’s attorneys asserted that threats created a chilling effect on advocacy and sought a protective order covering identity confidentiality and police presence at depositions

• Respondent Arguments: Plaintiffs contended that the existing criminal framework already addressed threats and that additional civil protection would unduly restrict discovery

• Court’s Reasoning: The judge noted that the protective‑order statute is facially broad enough to encompass “any person” whose safety is at risk, and that Rule 26(c) permits the court to issue orders “as necessary” to protect participants in the litigation

• Holding: No immediate protective order was entered, but the court signaled willingness to consider such relief under the cited authorities

• Operative Order: None issued at the hearing. The matter remains pending for a motion under Rule 26(c)

• Practical Outcome: Counsel now has a clear procedural basis to file a motion for attorney‑safety protection in the MDL

How Does This Affect You?

Before this hearing, litigants lacked explicit authority to request civil protective orders based solely on threats against counsel. The court clarified that § 1654(a) and Rule 26(c) can be invoked to shield attorneys from intimidation. Parties can now move for confidentiality orders, police escorts, or other security measures with a recognized legal foundation.

For Lawyers & Advocates

• A Rule 26(c) motion that cites § 1654(a) can request confidentiality of counsel identities and police presence at depositions where threats are documented.

• Engagement letters may be amended to include a clause obligating the client to cooperate with security assessments and to reimburse reasonable protective‑service costs.

• The Breyer hearing serves as persuasive authority when opposing a motion to compel disclosure of counsel contact information in other high‑profile MDLs.

• A threat‑assessment checklist that logs intimidation, triggers a 30