Monday, June 22, 2026
Page 1
C.A. Says Cal/OSHA Is Entitled to Subpoena Uber Over Driver’s Death During Delivery
Opinion Rejects Claim That Investigative Authority Is Limited to Accidents at ‘Workplace,’ Says No Need to Prove Decedent Was Defendant’s Employee Rather Than Contractor
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Eight of this district’s Court of Appeal held Thursday that a judge did not err in ordering Uber Technologies Inc. to hand over documents, pursuant to an administrative subpoena duces tecum issued by a state agency tasked with workplace safety, relating to a driver who purportedly fell down a flight of stairs during a delivery, leading to his death several days later.
Rejecting Uber’s contentions that the subpoena exceeds the statutory authority afforded to the California Department of Industrial Relations’ Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“OSHA”) to ensure compliance with safety regulations governing the “workplace,” the court said that the company’s framing of the agency’s powers is “unreasonably narrow.”
Justice Victor Viramontes, writing for the court, was similarly unpersuaded by the defendant’s assertion that OSHA bore the burden of proving that the driver was an “employee” of the company, saying:
“OSHA had the authority to subpoena records from Uber to determine whether [the decedent] was an employee or an independent contractor….OSHA was not required to first obtain a declaratory judgment finding [the driver] to be an employee before it could undertake an investigation and issue a subpoena to Uber.”
However, the court reversed the order compelling production “to the extent it orders production of all documents without limitation” and remanded “to the superior court to reconsider the scope of OSHA’s requests.”
Residential Delivery
The question arose after Dino Park tripped after making a delivery in a residential area of Los Angeles for the “Uber Eats” platform on May 26, 2023.
After OSHA was notified of his death by the county’s coroner’s office, the agency served Uber with the administrative subpoena duces tecum in September 2023, seeking 20 categories of documents “relevant to the issue of whether Mr. Park was an employee of Uber” and any files related to Park’s death, as well as broad requests relating to similarly situated drivers.
Uber objected to the request and declined to produce any responsive documents. On Oct. 20, 2023, Cal/OSHA filed a petition to compel production of the requested materials.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Thomas Long granted the agency’s petition without qualification on June 20, 2024.
Broad Authority
Saying that “[m]ore than 60 years ago in [the 1961 case of] Brovelli v. Superior Court…, the [California] Supreme Court reaffirmed the broad authority of state agencies to investigate matters within the scope of their statutory jurisdiction, and to issue administrative subpoenas in those investigations,” Viramontes pointed out:
“Brovelli instructs that administrative subpoenas are valid and enforceable…so long as they (1) inquire into matters ‘which the agency demanding production is authorized to make,’ (2) they are ‘not too indefinite’ in scope, and (3) the information sought is ‘reasonably relevant’ to the agency’s inquiry.”
Addressing the first factor, Viramontes noted that OSHA was granted broad authority to enforce regulations to achieve safe working environments for workers by virtue of the Legislature’s passage of the California Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1973, which includes provisions declaring that the agency “has the power, jurisdiction, and supervision over every employment and place of employment in this state.”
Labor Code §6313, which was adopted as part of the act, imposes a mandatory duty on the body to investigate the cause of any “employment accident that is fatal to one or more employees.” Sec. 6314(c), in turn, grants the agency authority to subpoena records, specifying:
“The chief and his or her authorized representatives may issue subpoenas to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of…records…for the purpose of carrying out the duties of the division.”
Workplace Inspections
Uber argued that §6314 grants OSHA subpoena authority only as to a duly-instituted inspection of a workplace, pointing out that subdivision (a) provides that the agency shall “have free access” to a “place of employment” when investigating possible violations. Rejecting this “narrow” reading of the agency’s authority, Viramontes remarked:
“The language of Labor Code section 6314, subdivision (c), is clear and unambiguous….It does not state that this authority can only be exercised in the course of an inspection of a place of employment, and we do not believe Uber’s interpretation is supported by the mere fact the provision is included in a section that also describes OSHA’s authority to inspect a place of employment.”
He continued:
“The language of section 6314 is substantially similar to and consistent with OSHA’s broad authority to issue administrative subpoenas under Government Code section 11181. We do not read Labor Code section 6314 as purporting to limit that well-settled authority. Moreover, we cannot conceive of any valid policy rationale for constraining OSHA’s ability to issue administrative subpoenas only in connection with an onsite inspection of an employer’s place of business. OSHA’s investigatory powers and enforcement duties are much broader than merely conducting on-site inspections.”
Scope of Request
As to the scope of OSHA’s request, he commented:
“The trial court ordered Uber to produce documents as to all 20 categories of requests without limitation or modification. The record is not well developed as to the relevance of certain requests….There is inadequate discussion explaining how records related to users or customers of Uber’s digital platforms are relevant to determining Park’s status as an independent contractor, the circumstances surrounding his death, or any actions Uber may have taken or not taken regarding training or prevention that may have contributed to the fatality.
Under those circumstances, the jurist declared:
“[T]he trial court is directed to conduct such further proceedings as are necessary to reconsider the scope of the document requests under Brovelli, and issue a new order compelling production as appropriate.”
The case is Division of Occupational Safety and Health v. Uber Technologies Inc., 2026 S.O.S. 1744.
Uber was represented by Amelia McDermott, S. Susie Keshishyan, and Edward Y. Tsui of the Century City office of Littler Mendelson P.C. as well as Alka Nari Ramchandani of the firm’s Walnut Creek location. In-house counsel Mark D. Licker, Danielle Arlene Lucido, and Rocio Yvette Garcia acted for OSHA.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company