UBER TECHNOLOGIES (GA), INC. v. JANE DOE 1, ON BEHALF OF JANE DOE 14, a MINOR

A woman sued Uber Technologies in a personal injury case and sought to depose Uber's CEO. Uber asked the trial court for a protective order to block that deposition, arguing the CEO lacked unique personal knowledge of the relevant facts. The trial court denied the protective order and also refused to issue a certificate of immediate review, a document needed before Uber could appeal that kind of order right away. Uber then asked the Court of Appeals of Georgia for a stay, which was denied, and finally asked the Supreme Court of Georgia to take up the case. The Supreme Court denied review, explaining that without the certificate of immediate review, no Georgia appellate court had the power to consider Uber's appeal at all, no matter how strong its arguments might be. Chief Justice Peterson wrote separately to say the trial court's decision looked seriously flawed and urged the trial court to reconsider on its own.

The Supreme Court of Georgia held that because the trial court denied Uber's request for a certificate of immediate review, no appellate court had authority under Georgia's interlocutory appeal statute to review the denial of the protective order, so certiorari was properly denied.

The ruling reinforces that Georgia's appellate courts cannot review certain trial court orders unless the trial judge first grants a certificate of immediate review, leaving litigants like Uber dependent on the trial judge's own reconsideration rather than appellate correction.

Petition for certiorari denied

1. The trial court's order denying a protective order is not immediately appealable under Georgia's interlocutory appeal statute (OCGA § 5-6-34(a)), which limits appellate review to categories of appeals the legislature has specifically authorized.
2. Because the trial court also denied Uber's request for a certificate of immediate review, a required document that lets a party seek appellate review before a case is finished, Uber had no lawful path to appeal the protective order ruling.
3. The Court of Appeals of Georgia therefore lacked power to grant Uber the stay it requested, since it could not review an order that was not properly before it without that certificate.
4. The concurrence noted that the trial court seemed to apply the wrong legal test under Georgia's deposition statute (OCGA § 9-11-26.1), which asks whether a company officer lacks unique personal knowledge of relevant facts, rather than the broader relevance standard the trial court actually used.
5. Even though the trial court may have erred, the Supreme Court of Georgia concluded it could not fix that error in this posture because the General Assembly, not the courts, controls which interlocutory rulings can be appealed.

• Uber lawsuit
• CEO deposition
• protective order
• interlocutory appeal
• certificate of immediate review