A $66,735 Lesson From Lyft: Discovery Delay Can Cost You More Than the Claim
Updated: Sep 6
From the Desk Of:
President, Managing Attorney
Certified Specialist Workers' Compensation Law
The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
Stall long enough on records requests in a California comp case, and a judge can find you acted with malice — and make you pay for it personally, not just for the claim. That's the lesson from a WCAB ruling against Lyft that every self-insured employer and TPA handling contested claims should read closely.
The case involves Mark Nahvi, a former Lyft driver who suffered catastrophic, permanent injuries in March 2018 after a passenger violently attacked him during a ride. Lyft denied his workers' comp claim, arguing Nahvi was an independent contractor, not an employee. That's a defensible position to take — Prop 22 and the underlying gig-economy classification fight have been litigated up and down California courts for years. What got Lyft in trouble wasn't the defense. It was how the company handled discovery.
Starting in 2021, Nahvi's attorneys sought Lyft's business and employment records through a subpoena, and then through a series of court orders — four different WCAB judges issued orders over the following years, including one in February 2024. A court-appointed discovery referee found in March 2025 that Lyft's delay was "unreasonable." Lyft still didn't produce what was ordered.
Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge M. Victor Bushin had seen enough. In findings issued July 20, 2026, Bushin wrote that Lyft "willfully delayed" the case and found that "the undersigned WCJ further finds Lyft acted with malice." He awarded Nahvi's attorneys $64,735 in fees and added a $2,000 sanction, for a total of $66,735.
Why this matters beyond one bad case
A malice finding on discovery conduct is not the same as losing the underlying employment-status argument. Lyft can still win on the independent contractor defense. But the sanction shows the WCAB and its judges will punish stonewalling separately from — and regardless of — the merits of your defense. Four judges' worth of orders and a referee's "unreasonable" finding is a long runway of warning signs that got ignored. That pattern, more than any single missed deadline, is what turned this into a malice finding instead of a garden-variety discovery dispute.
For carriers and TPAs managing litigation on independent contractor or employment-status defenses — the kind of case where records requests can be genuinely voluminous and where the temptation to slow-walk discovery while the bigger legal question gets sorted out is real — this is a reminder that the discovery clock runs independently of the merits clock.
What to do now
If you're litigating a status defense, employment classification, or any case where document production is complex, build a discovery compliance timeline the moment a subpoena or order lands, and treat missed deadlines as their own risk item, tracked separately from case strategy on the merits. When a discovery referee or a judge tells you your response was unreasonable, that's not a data point to argue past — it's a red flag to fix before the next order. And loop in defense counsel early enough that a genuinely hard classification defense doesn't get undercut by a self-inflicted sanctions record.
Law Offices of Parker & Irwin
This post is for general information only and is not legal advice.
Comments