Opinion

Rodriguez v. Google LLC

Court
District Court, N.D. California
Filed
Jun 4, 2021
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

1

2

3

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7 ANIBAL RODRIGUEZ, et al., Case No. 20-cv-04688-RS (AGT)

8 Plaintiffs,

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE

v.

9

Re: Dkt. No. 110

10 GOOGLE LLC,

Defendant.

11

12 Plaintiffs have moved to compel Google to provide one or more 30(b)(6) witnesses to testify

13 on six topics. The undersigned has considered the parties’ respective positions and rules as follows:

14 1. Topics 1–3 are premature. Google hasn’t finished producing topic-related documents, so

15 a 30(b)(6) deposition at this time would be inefficient. Plaintiffs may re-notice these topics after

16 Google substantially completes production of the topic-related documents.

17 2. Topic 2 appears to relate to plaintiffs’ “secret scripts” theory. Judge Seeborg recently

18 held that that theory was “woefully underdeveloped” in the then-operative complaint. Dkt. 109 at

19 12. Google, on that basis, argues that Topic 2 is moot. Judge Seeborg gave plaintiffs leave to amend

20 their complaint, and plaintiffs suggest that they will be taking that opportunity to refine their theory.

21 See Dkt. 110 at 4. At least until the pleadings are settled, the undersigned can’t definitively conclude

22 that Topic 2 is moot.

23 3. Topic 4 seeks testimony about Google’s document-preservation efforts in this litigation.

24 Plaintiffs haven’t identified a “specific deficiency” in Google’s preservation efforts, so their request

25 for a witness on this topic, which would be “discovery on discovery,” is denied. Uschold v. Carriage

26 Servs., Inc., 2019 WL 8298261, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2019) (Laporte, M.J.) (citing Brewer v.

27 BNSF Ry. Co., 2018 WL 882812, at *2 (D. Mont. Feb. 14, 2018)).

1 on certain subjects, and where certain documents are located. These topics should first be addressed

2 || through interrogatories. If plaintiffs can later show that testimony is needed to supplement written

3 discovery on these topics, they may renew their request to compel a witness to testify.

4 5. By June 11, 2021, the parties must meet and confer on a schedule for completing the

5 written discovery that needs to precede the 30(b)(6) depositions.

6 IT IS SO ORDERED.

7 Dated: June 4, 2021

8

9

ALEX G. TSE

10 United States Magistrate Judge

11

12

©

15

16

= 17

Z 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.