Taylor et al v. Google LLC

Filing 118

Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi re 113 October 10, 2024 Discovery Dispute re Plaintiffs' Document Requests. (vkdlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2024)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
JOSEPH TAYLOR, et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,

9
v.

10

GOOGLE LLC,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 20-cv-07956-VKD

Defendant.

12

ORDER RE OCTOBER 10, 2024
DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE
PLAINTIFFS' DOCUMENT
REQUESTS
Re: Dkt. No. 113

13
The parties ask the Court to resolve their dispute concerning plaintiffs’ recent requests for

14
15

production of documents by defendant Google LLC (“Google”). Dkt. No. 113. The Court finds

16

this dispute suitable for resolution without oral argument. Civil L.R. 7-1(b).
On September 16 and 20, 2024, plaintiffs served 48 document requests on Google. Dkt.

17
18

No. 113, Exs. A, B. Two weeks later, plaintiffs asked Google to apply a set of search terms to

19

documents in the possession of 17 Google custodians. Id. at 3, Ex. C. The parties disagree about

20

the precise number of documents plaintiffs now ask Google to review; plaintiffs estimate the

21

number is 300,000-400,000, while Google estimates the number is well over 500,000. Id. at 3, 8.

22

Although Google objects that many of plaintiffs’ document requests are “overbroad, tangential, or

23

unrelated” to the case,1 it advises that notwithstanding these objections it has begun review of the

24

documents hit by plaintiffs’ search terms for these custodians. Id. However, Google says that it

25

cannot complete this review before the close of fact discovery. Id. at 8.
As Google points out, the Ninth Circuit mandate in this case issued on April 22, 2024, and

26
27
28

At the time the parties filed their discovery dispute letter, Google’s objections to plaintiffs’
document requests were not yet due. See Dkt. No. 113 at 6.
1

1

the parties agreed to a deadline to complete fact discovery by October 29, 2024. Nothing

2

prevented plaintiffs from serving some or all of these document requests earlier in the discovery

3

period. While the requests are not technically untimely under Rule 34 or Civil Local Rule 37-3,

4

plaintiffs cannot reasonably expect Google to review hundreds of thousands of documents in

5

response to 48 document requests (some of which are indeed quite broad) within a few weeks of

6

the fact discovery deadline. The Court will not order Google to do this. The Court also will not

7

micromanage the parties’ document review.

8

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

If plaintiffs wish Google to review these custodians’ files for responsive documents for
production by the close of fact discovery, the Court suggests that plaintiffs work with Google to

10

narrow the scope of the document review and/or prioritize which document categories are

11

reviewed first.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 18, 2024

14
15
Virginia K. DeMarchi
United States Magistrate Judge

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