Rodriguez et al v. Google LLC et al

Filing 111

Order by Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse Re: 110 Discovery Dispute. (agtlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/4/2021)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANIBAL RODRIGUEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 20-cv-04688-RS (AGT) ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE v. Re: Dkt. No. 110 GOOGLE LLC, Defendant. 12 Plaintiffs have moved to compel Google to provide one or more 30(b)(6) witnesses to testify 13 on six topics. The undersigned has considered the parties’ respective positions and rules as follows: 14 1. Topics 1–3 are premature. Google hasn’t finished producing topic-related documents, so 15 a 30(b)(6) deposition at this time would be inefficient. Plaintiffs may re-notice these topics after 16 Google substantially completes production of the topic-related documents. 17 2. Topic 2 appears to relate to plaintiffs’ “secret scripts” theory. Judge Seeborg recently 18 held that that theory was “woefully underdeveloped” in the then-operative complaint. Dkt. 109 at 19 12. Google, on that basis, argues that Topic 2 is moot. Judge Seeborg gave plaintiffs leave to amend 20 their complaint, and plaintiffs suggest that they will be taking that opportunity to refine their theory. 21 See Dkt. 110 at 4. At least until the pleadings are settled, the undersigned can’t definitively conclude 22 that Topic 2 is moot. 23 3. Topic 4 seeks testimony about Google’s document-preservation efforts in this litigation. 24 Plaintiffs haven’t identified a “specific deficiency” in Google’s preservation efforts, so their request 25 for a witness on this topic, which would be “discovery on discovery,” is denied. Uschold v. Carriage 26 Servs., Inc., 2019 WL 8298261, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2019) (Laporte, M.J.) (citing Brewer v. 27 BNSF Ry. Co., 2018 WL 882812, at *2 (D. Mont. Feb. 14, 2018)). 28 4. Topics 5 and 6 only ask Google to identify which of its employees are most knowledgeable 1 on certain subjects, and where certain documents are located. These topics should first be addressed 2 through interrogatories. If plaintiffs can later show that testimony is needed to supplement written 3 discovery on these topics, they may renew their request to compel a witness to testify. 4 5 6 7 5. By June 11, 2021, the parties must meet and confer on a schedule for completing the written discovery that needs to precede the 30(b)(6) depositions. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 4, 2021 8 9 ALEX G. TSE United States Magistrate Judge 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?