Taylor et al v. Google LLC
Filing
147
ORDER re 135 November 14, 2024 Discovery Dispute re Boyer Experiment Documents. Signed by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 11/22/2024. (vkdlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2024)
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 NOVEMBER 14, 2024
DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE BOYER
EXPERIMENT DOCUMENTS
Re: Dkt. No. 135
13
14
On November 19, 2024, the Court held a hearing on the parties’ November 14, 2024
15
discovery dispute letter. The letter concerns Google production document, GOOG-CSUPO-
16
00055460, which was used in the deposition of Google employee Garry Boyer as Exhibit 12.
The November 14, 2024 letter addresses two issues: (1) whether an “experiment” that is
17
18
hyperlinked in Boyer Exhibit 12 is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege
19
and/or the attorney work product doctrine, as Google contends; and (2) whether Google should be
20
required to produce the “underlying data” for certain charts excerpted in Boyer Exhibit 12.1
21
For the reasons explained at the hearing, the Court cannot resolve the privilege/work
22
product dispute on the record presented, and thus plaintiffs’ request for order requiring Google to
23
produce the experiment is denied without prejudice. Plaintiffs may file a motion to compel
24
production of the experiment as a regularly noticed motion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-2.
With respect to the underlying data for the charts shown in Boyer Exhibit 12, plaintiffs
25
26
have not shown that they are entitled to production of this data (or to have Google search now for
27
28
The parties clarified during the hearing that the “underlying data” is unrelated to the
“experiment.”
1
1
this data), in view of the production of data that Google has already made in response to plaintiffs’
2
document requests, as described at pages 8-9 in Google’s portion of the November 14, 2024 letter.
3
Plaintiffs do not acknowledge or address these arguments in their portion of the letter. When
4
pressed on this point at the hearing, plaintiffs referred vaguely to a concern that Google’s prior
5
production of data was “selective” or otherwise incomplete. However, plaintiffs do not make any
6
such argument in the November 14, 2024 letter, and the Court will not entertain this undeveloped
7
argument made for the first time at the hearing. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ request for production of
8
the “underlying data” for the charts shown in Boyer Exhibit 12 is denied.
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 22, 2024
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Virginia K. DeMarchi
United States Magistrate Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?