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)

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