Robert Heath v. Google Inc.

Filing 146

Order Clarifying 130 Order re Discovery Dispute Joint Report No. 2. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 3/29/2017. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/29/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

ROBERT HEATH, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16
17

Case No.5:15-cv-01824-BLF (HRL)

v.
GOOGLE INC.,

ORDER CLARIFYING ORDER RE
DISCOVERY DISPUTE JOINT
REPORT NO. 2

Defendant.
A dispute arose as to what this court intended in its order re Discovery Dispute Joint

18

Report No. 2 (Dkt. 130). On March 29, 2017, the court convened a telephone hearing to discuss

19

the matter. As discussed at that conference, the court clarifies that it intended for Google, Inc.’s

20

production of gHire data to (1) include applicants who had in-person interviews and those who did

21

not and (2) distinguish between the two.

22

SO ORDERED.

23

Dated: March 29, 2017

24
25
26
27
28

HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

1
2

5:15-cv-01824-BLF Notice has been electronically mailed to:
Anthony Craig Cleland [e-mail],
[e-mail]

3
4

Brian Davis Berry [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

5

Daniel A. Kotchen

6

Daniel Lee Low

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

7
Dow Wakefield Patten

[e-mail], [e-mail]

8
9

George S. Duesdieker

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Michael F. Brown

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Thomas Michael McInerney [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

12

[e-mail]

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2