Clemons v. Google, Inc.

Filing 18

Discovery Plan by Google LLC.(Roche, John)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

RICHARD CLEMONS,
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 1:17-CV-00963-AJT-TCB

v.
GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant.

GOOGLE LLC’S PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN
Defendant Google LLC (“Google”) files this Proposed Discovery Plan pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3) and the Court’s scheduling order of November 17, 2017. Dkt. 16. Google
has attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff Richard Clemons regarding the contents of this
Plan via email, the only contact information provided by Mr. Clemons, but has not received a
response. Accordingly, Google files this Proposed Discovery Plan without the benefit of Mr.
Clemons’s input.
Procedural Background
Mr. Clemons, proceeding pro se, filed this action against Google on August 28, 2017.
Dkt. 1. On November 16, 2017, Google filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion
to Transfer Venue (“Motion to Dismiss”), dkt. 10, and Motion to Modify the Caption, dkt. 14.
On November 20, 2017, the Court granted Google’s Motion to Modify the Caption. Dkt. 17.
Google’s Motion to Dismiss is currently set for a hearing on December 22, 2017. Dkt. 12.

Proposed Discovery Plan
Considering the nature of Mr. Clemons’s claim for relief, Google’ pending Motion to
Dismiss, and Mr. Clemons’s lack of contact with Google despite Google’s attempts to meet and
confer prior to filing its Motion to Dismiss and this Plan, Google proposes the following:
1.

Settlement. Google has been unable to reach Mr. Clemons to discuss his claims

and the possibility of a prompt resolution of this case. Google remains willing to engage in these
discussions following contact by Mr. Clemons.
2.

Initial disclosures. In light of Google’s pending Motion to Dismiss and Mr.

Clemons’s lack of contact, Google would propose that initial disclosures be delayed until 14
days following entry of the Court’s order on Google’s pending Motion to Dismiss, if such
Motion is not granted.
3.

Consent to Magistrate Judge. Google does not consent to the assignment of this

case to a Magistrate Judge.
4.

Limitations/Phased Discovery. Discovery need not be conducted in phases or

limited beyond the applicable rules and/or any order of this Court.
5.

Discovery Cutoff. If the case is not dismissed or transferred, then all discovery

must be completed by April 13, 2018, per Order of the Court. See Dkt. 16.
6.

Expert Disclosures. The parties shall exchange expert witness reports and

information, if any, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) and Local Rule 26(D)
as follows:
•

Expert witness designations and reports are due from Mr. Clemons on February
12, 2018;

•

Expert witness designations and reports are due from Google on March 14, 2018;

-2-

and
•

Mr. Clemons’s rebuttal expert witness designations and reports (i.e., those to
contradict or rebut the designation by Google) are due on March 29, 2018.

7.

Electronically Stored Information. All discoverable electronically stored text-

based information shall be produced in either a readable electronic format or hard-copy (paper)
form absent separate agreement by the parties regarding specific requests.
8.

Protective Order. Google will attempt to confer with Mr. Clemons in good faith

to develop a mutually agreeable protective order in the event either party desires such an order.
In the event there is a dispute over a party’s request for a protective order, either of the parties
may file the appropriate motion with the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(c), as necessary.
9.

Inadvertent Production. Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 502(d), the production of a

privileged or work-product-protected document is not a waiver of privilege or protection from
discovery in this case or in any other federal or state proceeding. A producing party may assert
privilege or protection over produced documents at any time by notifying the receiving party in
writing of the assertion of privilege or protection. The parties shall, after notification by the
other party or if the information appears on its face to have been inadvertently produced,
promptly return, sequester, or destroy any documents the other party claims, or the receiving
party has reason to believe, are privileged but were inadvertently produced. The party in receipt
of said information under these circumstances shall retain the right to challenge the assertion of
privilege and shall not disclose the information until the claim of privilege is resolved. The
handling and resolution of claims of privilege will otherwise be resolved pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) and/or any other applicable Rule or Order of this Court.

-3-

DATED: December 6, 2017

Respectfully submitted,
By

/s/John K. Roche
John K. Roche (VSB# 68594)
Perkins Coie, LLP
700 13th St., N.W., Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20005-3960
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

Counsel for Defendant Google LLC

-4-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 6th day of December, 2017, I will electronically file the
foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, and I will send the document by
email to the following non-filing user (packages sent to the postal address below have been
returned to sender):
Richard Clemons
211 N. Union St., Suite 100
Alexandria, VA 22314
[e-mail]
Pro Se Plaintiff
By:

/s/ John K. Roche
John K. Roche (VSB# 68594)
Perkins Coie LLP
700 13th St. N.W., Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20005-3960
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

Counsel for Defendant Google LLC

-5-