Nahvi: Lyft’s Willful Records Delay Led to $64,735 in Attorney Fees and a Sanction

A workers’ compensation judge can make a party pay the other side’s attorney fees, and add a sanction of up to $2,500, when its delay in producing records is bad faith rather than mere slowness. In Mark Nahvi v. Lyft, Inc., No. ADJ12356394 (WCAB Oct. 23, 2026), a three-member Appeals Board panel denied Lyft’s petition for reconsideration of findings that it willfully delayed the case, that its records custodian’s affidavits were late and inadequate, and that it owed $64,735 in attorney fees plus a $2,000 sanction. It decides discovery conduct only; whether Nahvi was Lyft’s employee and was injured at work remains for trial.

A 2021 subpoena and years of orders

Nahvi drove for Lyft. His application, filed July 11, 2019, alleged that a passenger attacked him on March 10, 2018, and that he lost consciousness with serious injuries, including to his brain. Lyft, self-insured and administered by Gallagher Bassett, denied the claim. On November 17, 2021, Nahvi’s attorney issued a subpoena for business records requiring a custodian’s affidavit with the production. What followed:

• April 2022: Nahvi petitioned to compel compliance. At a status conference Lyft said it would produce the records in its possession.
• September 2022: Lyft produced some records, five months after agreeing to, without a custodian’s affidavit.
• December 6, 2022: Lyft stipulated to comply with the subpoena, identify its custodian and provide a privilege log for any privilege claim; Nahvi agreed to provide signed releases. The presiding judge made the agreement an order.
• January 6, 2024: Lyft’s first custodian affidavit is dated.
• February 7, 2024: After a third hearing, a judge ordered production of listed categories of documents, a custodian’s declaration and a witness for deposition.
• April 23, 2024: Lyft’s second custodian affidavit is dated.

After a 2024 sanctions order was vacated and the case reassigned, the parties agreed to use a retired judge as a discovery master. He found the delay unreasonable and the affidavits inadequate. Trial on sanctions and discovery ran from November 18, 2025 to June 10, 2026 and included three days of testimony from Lyft’s custodian of records.

The judge found Lyft decided relevance for itself

The judge agreed with the discovery master and went further, finding that Lyft “acted with malice.” The core of that finding was the custodian’s own description of her job. She testified that her role “includes reviewing requests, determining relevance, and producing documents deemed appropriate.” The judge answered: “It is the Undersigned WCJ’s job to determine if the documents are relevant, not Lyft’s job.” The judge also found that Lyft trained the custodian and gave her the title of paralegal, so her approach reflected how Lyft wanted subpoenas handled.

The judge then listed testimony showing categories Lyft had not produced and had not objected to: airport rules and surge pricing, support tickets, rider information, “Go Guides,” and employee files, timecards and payroll records, which Lyft said it does not keep because it classifies drivers as independent contractors. Some of those records bore on the central dispute; the judge noted that airport rules and Go Guides went to how much control Lyft had over drivers in 2018. For every category, the judge’s point was the same. Lyft needed to object on time, seek a protective order or clarification, serve a privilege log, or state that no such records existed. Citing Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.240 on how objections and privilege claims must be stated, the judge added that failing to timely respond to a subpoena waives any objection, including privilege.

The judge also pointed to the custodian’s testimony that she produces an affidavit only when asked, although the standard subpoena form asks for one, and that she had been trained that discovery “is a negotiation.” The judge found that training reflected “an intent to delay discovery and the case.”

On the amounts, the judge set the sanction at $2,000, “considering the extent of delay and the court resources needed to get this case moving toward an AOE/COE trial,” meaning a trial on whether the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. For the $64,735 fee award, the judge accepted the hourly rates in the applicant attorney’s May 15, 2026 amended fee petition and found the hours listed there reasonable. The judge called the $550 hourly rate “on the high side” but reasonable given the case’s complexity and the firm’s work getting Nahvi treated on a lien basis.

Lyft argued that late production is not bad faith

In the Board’s summary, Lyft argued that the requested records had been produced, that there was no bad faith even with the delayed production, and that it had tried to comply as thoroughly as possible since receiving a November 8, 2023 letter listing the records requested. The judge’s findings answered that the delay was not mere slowness. They rested on Lyft deciding relevance internally, withholding categories without objection or a privilege log, and supplying a custodian’s affidavit more than two years after the subpoena and more than a year after a stipulated order.

The Board treated the order as final and left it in place

Lyft sought reconsideration or, alternatively, removal. The Board treated the petition as one for reconsideration: an order to pay sanctions and attorney fees “obviously affects liability,” so it is a final order, even though the same decision also ordered further production, an interim discovery step.

On the merits, the Board set out Labor Code section 5813, which allows fees and costs caused by “bad-faith actions or tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay,” plus a sanction of up to $2,500 payable to the state’s General Fund. It quoted WCAB Rule 10421, which requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before any such order, treats “willful failure to comply with a statutory or regulatory obligation” as bad-faith conduct, and lists failure to comply with an order, including a discovery order. The Board then denied reconsideration “for the reasons stated by the WCJ in the Opinion on Decision and Report . . . .” The reasoning described above is therefore the trial judge’s, adopted by the Board in its order.

What the decision resolved and what it left for trial

The disposition is a denial of reconsideration. The July 20, 2026 findings stand: willful delay, late and inadequate affidavits, $64,735 in attorney fees, a $2,000 sanction, and an order to produce remaining records with a custodian’s affidavit stating that everything in Nahvi’s file has been produced. The judge expressly reserved all other issues. The decision does not determine whether Nahvi was Lyft’s employee or whether his injuries arose out of his work.

In our reading, the decision is most useful for its record. The judge did not rely on the length of delay alone. The findings rest on a subpoena and a stipulated court order to comply with it, affidavits that arrived more than two years after the subpoena, specific categories withheld without objection or privilege log, and the custodian’s own testimony about how Lyft handles subpoenas. A party responding to a subpoena should, in our reading, object specifically and on time, log privileged material, and leave relevance to the judge. Our guide to what to do when an employer or insurer stalls on records covers the injured worker’s side of that problem.