Robert Heath v. Google Inc.

Filing 384

ORDER CLARIFYING SCOPE OF DISCOVERY, RE 357 MOTION TO CLARIFY. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 9/27/2018.(blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/27/2018)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

ROBERT HEATH, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

8

GOOGLE LLC,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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

[Re: ECF 357]

Defendant.

11
12

ORDER CLARIFYING SCOPE OF
DISCOVERY

v.

9
10

Case No. 15-cv-01824-BLF

Before the Court is Defendant Google LLC’s (“Google”) Motion for Clarification or, in
the Alternative, Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration (“Motion”). See Mot., ECF
357. Through this motion, Google seeks clarification as to whether a pending discovery dispute
should be submitted to the magistrate judge, or whether Google must instead seek leave to file a
motion for reconsideration of a previous order that Plaintiffs argue foreclosed the disputed
discovery.
In his July 27, 2017 discovery dispute order, Magistrate Judge Lloyd relied on this Court’s
discussions with the parties about the scope of discovery to determine what “level of discovery
[Google] may be allowed to obtain from the opt-in[] [Plaintiffs].” “Order,” ECF 185 at 1. Based
on his understanding that this Court believed “it should be limited discovery, not full discovery,”
he prescribed a discovery plan allowing for written discovery sent to 75 opt-in Plaintiffs and
depositions of 35 Plaintiffs. Id. at 2. This Court later upheld the scope of discovery set forth in
that Order, referencing, in part, discussions held at the June 6, 2017 Case Management Conference
(“CMC,” ECF 173) and the case Wellens v. Daiichi Sankyo Inc., No. C-13-00581-WHO(DMR), 2014
WL 7385990 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2014). See ECF 199; 207.
Through its present motion, Google requests clarification of Judge Lloyd’s Order and this

1

Court’s subsequent approval thereof. Google believes that this limitation applied only to discovery

2

pre-certification (i.e., pre-denial of decertification) of the collective action. See Mot. at 1. By contrast,

3

Plaintiffs believe this Court and Magistrate Judge Lloyd’s Order limited Google to this discovery

4

scope for the entirety of discovery (though it admits that “additional discovery relating to the Opt-Ins’

5

damages and mitigation damages may be necessary in Phase II”). Opp. at 4–5 & n.1, ECF 364.

6

Because decertification was denied, Google now seeks additional discovery from the Opt-Ins prior to

7

trial and requests the Court clarify whether this issue is an open one, such that the related discovery

8

dispute would go to the magistrate judge. Mot. at 1–3.

9

The Court finds it clear from the record that Judge Lloyd’s Order limiting discovery applied
only to pre-decertification discovery. This Court expressly stated as much at the June 6, 2017 case

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

management conference, stating “I think that in terms of allowing Google to oppose or to bring forth a

12

de-cert motion, that [it] is appropriate that Google have access to enough information to highlight the

13

most disparate group of plaintiffs to establish that they are not similarly situated.” CMC at 8:13–17;

14

see also CMC at 7:11–8:4 (discussing discovery “[i]n terms of the liability phase”). And the Court

15

referenced Wellens, 2014 WL 7385990 as persuasive, a case dealing explicitly with the scope of

16

discovery pre-decertification. Likewise, the transcript from the hearing in front of Judge Lloyd on the

17

underlying discovery dispute makes clear that he also had certification in mind. There, he discussed

18

certain requested discovery by stating, “I don’t see how it goes to the question of decertification.”

19

Hearing Tr. at 8:22–23, ECF 192; see also Hearing Tr. at 10:8–12 (“I’m just not overwhelmed by the

20

argument of the defense that they need damage information to show that there’s a diversity of potential

21

damages . . . and that that factor would weigh in whether or not the class should remain certified or

22

not.”). As such, this Court finds that the scope of discovery was limited only for the purposes of

23

decertification.

24

To be clear, the present Order clarifies only that Magistrate Judge Lloyd’s Order did not set the

25

scope of discovery outside of that necessary for decertification. This order does not address the proper

26

scope of any non-decertification discovery, or whether a request for any such discovery at this time

27

would be timely. Those matters should be addressed to the magistrate judge responsible for discovery

28

disputes.

2

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2
3
4
5

Dated: September 27, 2018
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
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
3