Brown et al v. Google LLC et al

Filing 273

ORDER REVISING SEPTEMBER 13, 2021 SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Judge Susan van Keulen on 9/16/2021. (svklc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2021)

Case 5:20-cv-03664-LHK Document 273 Filed 09/16/21 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7
8

CHASOM BROWN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GOOGLE LLC,

9

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

12

PATRICK CALHOUN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

13
14

GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant

15
16

ORDER REVISING SEPTEMBER 13,
2021 SCHEDULING ORDER
Re: Dkt. Nos. 269 (Brown); 304 (Calhoun)

10
11

Case No. 20-cv-03664-LHK (SVK)
Case No. 20-cv-05416-LHK (SVK)

On September 13, 2021, the Court issued an order setting a schedule for objections and a

17

hearing on an anticipated Special Master’s report, which at that time was expected to issue on

18

September 16, 2021. Brown Dkt. 269; Calhoun Dkt. 304 (the “Scheduling Order”). The Special

19

Master has informed the Court that, pursuant to his review of the Parties’ submissions and

20

telephonic proceedings with the Parties, the Parties have agreed to proceed as follows to address

21

issues of production of documents regarding Plaintiffs and potential class members:

22

•

Step 1: By the morning of September 17, 2021, Google will identify to the Special

23

Master and Plaintiffs all databases and data logs (collectively, “data sources”) that

24

may contain responsive information. For each data source, Google will provide, at

25

a minimum: (1) the name of the database or data log; (2) a description of the data

26

source’s purpose and function; (3) information about the default retention status of

27

the data source (at a minimum, whether it is retained and for how long);

28

(4) information about the current retention status of the data source (at a minimum,

Case 5:20-cv-03664-LHK Document 273 Filed 09/16/21 Page 2 of 3

1

whether it is retained and for how long); and (5) where current retention status

2

differs from default retention status, the date the change was implemented.

3

In light of this agreement and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 53(c)(1)(B) authorizing the

4

Special Master to take all appropriate measures to perform the assigned duties fairly and

5

efficiently, the Special Master may further direct the Parties as follows for the continuation of the

6

facilitation of production of documents regarding Plaintiffs and potential class members:

7

•

Step 2: The Special Master will supervise a meet and confer with the Parties to
identify those data sources that potentially contain responsive information that will

9

be subject to searches and production of responsive records and set a deadline for

10

Google to provide information about each selected data source. For each selected

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

data source, Google will provide, at a minimum: (1) the data schema;

12

(2) definitions and descriptions of each field; (3) tool(s) which Google employees

13

(“Googlers”) use to search each data source; and (4) instruction sets and manuals

14

for all tools identified as being used by Googlers to search any data source

15

identified in this step. The Court is informed that the Special Master has directed

16

Google to begin collecting this data mapping information now and Google will

17

provide it to the Special Master and Plaintiffs the day following the identification

18

of data sources in this step.

19

•

Step 3: The Special Master will supervise a meet and confer with the Parties to

20

create search strings for each data source and agree upon a production format. The

21

Special Master will officiate and resolve disputes.

22

It is the expectation of the Special Master and the Court that the productions that will result from

23

this process will be completed by the October 6, 2021 deadline previously ordered by this Court.

24

Accordingly, the Court suspends the deadlines for objections to and a hearing on the Special

25

Master’s previously anticipated report as set forth in the Scheduling Order. The Special Master

26

has authority to engage in the agreed-upon steps outlined above, including setting deadlines and

27

directing the Parties’ participation in each step of the process, without the need to provide interim

28

reports to the Court. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 53(c)(1)(B).
2

Case 5:20-cv-03664-LHK Document 273 Filed 09/16/21 Page 3 of 3

1
2

SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 16, 2021

3
4
SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge

5
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