The opinion
USONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESST RDIICSTT ROIFC TN ECWOU YROTR K
-------------------------------------------------------------X
:
ULKA ROWE, :
Plaintiff, :
: 19 Civ. 8655 (LGS)
-against- :
: ORDER
GOOGLE LLC, :
Defendant. :
-------------------------------------------------------------X
LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge:
WHEREAS, a telephonic conference is scheduled for June 4, 2020, at 10:40 a.m.;
WHEREAS, on May 29, 2020 the parties filed a joint letter regarding remaining disputes
that require the Court’s attention to resolve (Dkt. No. 40). It is hereby
ORDERED that the June 4, 2020, conference is CANCELED. It is further
ORDERED that, with respect to the dispute regarding the production of Level 8 and 9
comparator information, Defendant shall also produce the “snapshot” for years 2018 and 2019.
Defendant shall also identify the Level (8 or 9) for each individual identified in the 2017, 2018
and 2019 snapshots. It is further
ORDERED that, with respect to the dispute regarding the production of Level 10
comparator information, Defendants shall produce the requested information for the six VP/Head
of Industry roles under Mr. Shaukat. It is further
ORDERED that, with respect to the dispute regarding Defendant’s ESI searches, this
dispute is premature as the parties have not yet met and conferred regarding the most recent of
Plaintiff’s proposals and Defendant’s counter-proposals. Any remaining dispute following
appropriate negotiation shall be raised with the Magistrate Judge. A referral will issue
separately. It is further
ORDERED that, with respect to the dispute regarding Defendant’s redaction of “non-
responsive, sensitive information,” this Court generally declines to permit the unilateral
redaction of purportedly irrelevant information. See, e.g., Christine Asia Co. v. Alibaba Grp.
Holding Ltd., 327 F.R.D. 52, 54 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (“The weight of authority in this Circuit goes
against allowing a party to redact information from admittedly responsive and relevant
documents ‘based on that party's unilateral determinations of relevancy.’”) (citing cases);
Durling v. Papa John's Int'l, Inc., No. 16 Civ. 3592, 2018 WL 557915, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 24,
2018) (“As guidance, the Court notes that redactions on grounds of non-responsiveness or
irrelevance are generally impermissible, especially where, as here, a confidentiality stipulation
and order... is in place.”); Johnson v. City of New York, No. 16 Civ. 6426, 2018 WL 276349, at
*3 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2018) (“To the contrary, New York federal courts generally frown upon the
practice of redacting unresponsive or irrelevant information. It is not the practice of this court to
permit parties to selectively excise from otherwise discoverable documents those portions that
they deem not to be relevant. To do so would require a finding of ‘good cause’ based on a need
to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or
expense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).” (quotation marks omitted)). Defendant shall re-produce all
documents redacted for reasons other than privilege in non-redacted form. All remaining
redactions must be included in the privilege log. To the extent necessary to ensure any sensitive,
non-privileged information is protected, the parties may propose an amended protective order or
otherwise raise the issue with the Magistrate Judge.
An amended case management plan and scheduling order will issue separately.
Dated: June 1, 2020
New York, New York | .
LORNA G. SCHOFIEL
5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE