The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 San Francisco Division
11 TODD CROWDER, et al., Case No. 22-cv-00237-HSG (LB)
12 Plaintiffs,
DISCOVERY ORDER
13 v.
Re: ECF Nos. 176, 177, 179
14 LINKEDIN CORPORATION,
15 Defendant.
16
17 INTRODUCTION
18 The parties have discovery disputes in this putative class action, where the plaintiffs claim
19 monopolization and attempted monopolization from practices that allegedly allow LinkedIn to
20 overcharge Premium subscribers, in violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act. The two categories of
21 alleged anticompetitive conduct are (1) offering potential rivals access to LinkedIn’s private user
22 data through application-programming interfaces (API) unavailable to others, on the condition that
23 the rivals do not compete with LinkedIn, and (2) integrating LinkedIn’s user data with parent
24 company Microsoft’s Azure cloud product, thereby “tying up and driving up prices for scarce
25 hardware resources.”1
26
27 1 Order Den. Prelim. Approval – ECF No. 135 at 1–2 (summarizing complaint); Disc. Letter Brs. –
ECF Nos. 176, 177, & 179. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (ECF); pinpoint
1 The three discovery disputes are (1) whether LinkedIn must add two custodians in response to
2 the plaintiffs’ requests for production related to LinkedIn’s API agreements and alleged
3 anticompetitive conduct (ECF No. 176), (2) whether LinkedIn must produce documents
4 responsive to the plaintiffs’ RFP Nos. 24–26 concerning government antitrust investigations and
5 the alleged Data, Machine Learning, and Inference Barrier to Entry (DMIBE) (ECF No. 177), and
6 (3) whether LinkedIn must serve a privilege log, produce legible images, and produce certain
7 categories of metadata for its Production Volume 23 pursuant to Paragraphs 6(f) and 8(b) of the
8 Interim ESI Order and Paragraph 2.1 of this court’s standing order (ECF No. 179).2 Fact discovery
9 closes September 18, 2026.3
10 For ECF No. 176, the plaintiffs’ request to add two custodians — Angela Yoon and Maggie
11 Ly — is denied without prejudice. Document production is ongoing, and the request is premature.
12 The plaintiffs have not shown that either possesses uniquely relevant information that is not
13 available from any of LinkedIn’s nineteen designated custodians. The plaintiffs may renew their
14 request if, after substantial completion and review of LinkedIn’s production, they determine that
15 LinkedIn has not produced or logged the documents identified by the plaintiffs in ECF 176.4
16 For ECF No. 177, the court grants the plaintiffs’ request in part. For RFP No. 24, LinkedIn
17 must reproduce all responses and documents it produced in connection with Klein v. Meta
18 Platforms, Inc., No. 20-cv-08570 (N.D. Cal.). For RFP Nos. 25–26, LinkedIn must run the
19 plaintiffs’ proposed search terms against the four custodians it has identified and provide hit
20 counts for each custodian to the plaintiffs. The parties must meet and confer on the hit counts to
21 discuss any narrowing of the plaintiffs’ proposed terms. The plaintiffs’ request that LinkedIn run
22 its proposed search terms across all nineteen custodians is otherwise denied.
23 For ECF No. 179, the court grants the plaintiffs’ request in part. LinkedIn must serve a
24 privilege log for its Volume 23 production in compliance with the Interim ESI Order and this
25
26 2 Disc. Letter Brs. – ECF Nos. 176, 177, 179.
27
3 Scheduling Order – ECF No. 143 at 1.
4 Disc. Letter Br. – ECF No. 176 at 4 (identifying unproduced email attachments to documents
1 court’s standing order, and it must reproduce readable production images for any file in Volume
2 23 that contains illegible or corrupt images. The plaintiffs’ request that LinkedIn produce all
3 metadata for the Volume 23 production set is denied. LinkedIn must produce the full set of
4 available metadata for the Klein production, as it has offered to do. The Interim ESI Order does
5 not require that LinkedIn manually input missing metadata fields, and it would be unduly
6 burdensome to LinkedIn if ordered to do so.
7
8 LEGAL STANDARD
9 Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s
10 claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the
11 issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant
12 information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and
13 whether the burden of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this
14 scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b).
15 “Pretrial discovery is ordinarily accorded a broad and liberal treatment.” Peng v. Nw. Mut. Life
16 Ins. Co., No. 17-cv-01760-SI, 2017 WL 3007030, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2017) (cleaned up)
17 (quoting Shoen v. Shoen, 5 F.3d 1289, 1292 (9th Cir. 1993)). Moreover, “[t]he test for relevance is
18 not overly exacting: evidence is relevant if it has ‘any tendency to make . . . more or less probable
19 . . . [a] fact [that] is of consequence in determining the action.’” In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel”
20 Mktg., Sales Pracs., & Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC), 2018 WL 340640, at *1
21 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2018) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 401).
22 The party moving to compel discovery “has the initial burden of establishing that the
23 information sought is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the
24 case.” Impinj, Inc. v. NXP USA, Inc., No. 19-cv-03161-YGR (AGT), 2022 WL 16586886, at *2
25 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2022) (cleaned up). The party resisting discovery bears the burden of showing
26 that the discovery should not be allowed and of supporting its objections with competent evidence.
27 Lofton v. Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC, 308 F.R.D. 276, 281 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Under Rule 26(b),
1 less burdensome source, or where the burden “outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
2 26(b)(1), (2)(C).
3 The responding party generally is “in a better position” to identify those employees “most
4 likely to possess responsive ESI.” Emerson v. Iron Mountain Info. Mgmt. Servs., Inc., No. 20-cv
5 08607-YGR (AGT), 2021 WL 8085488, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2021). That said, a requesting
6 party may obtain additional custodians upon a showing that the disputed custodians “possess
7 uniquely relevant information that is not available from the sources already designated.” In re
8 Facebook, Inc. Consumer Priv. User Profile Litig., No. 3:18-MD-02843-VC-JSC, 2021 WL
9 10282213, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2021).
10
11 ANALYSIS
12 1. Custodians for LinkedIn’s Document Production (ECF No. 176)
13 This is another dispute about LinkedIn’s designated custodians.5 On April 6, 2026, the court
14 ordered LinkedIn to designate nineteen custodians and held that additional custodians may be
15 ordered only on a showing that they “possess uniquely relevant information that is not available
16 from the sources already designated.”6 LinkedIn began its custodial productions on April 27,
17 2026.7 It represents that its custodial productions are ongoing.8 The parties dispute the number of
18 custodial documents that LinkedIn has produced to date.9
19 The plaintiffs now seek to add two additional custodians: Angela Yoon and Maggie Ly.
20 1.1 Angela Yoon (Director, Competition & Regulatory)
21 Summary of Dispute. Ms. Yoon is an in-house attorney and “Director, Competition and
22 Regulatory” at LinkedIn.10 The plaintiffs contend that they have a particularized need for Ms.
23
24
5 See Disc. Letter Br. – ECF No. 162 (concerning LinkedIn custodians).
6 Order – ECF No. 170 at 7 (quoting In re Facebook, 2021 WL 10282213, at *1).
25
7 Disc. Letter Br. – ECF No 176 at 1.
26 8 Id. at 5.
27
9 Compare id. at 1 (plaintiffs contend LinkedIn has produced 7,430 custodial documents), with id. at 5
n.4 (LinkedIn contends it “has produced over 39,000 documents”).
1 Yoon’s custodial files because she managed LinkedIn’s response to a “competition law dispute”
2 with an API partner, and her files will likely contain “earlier-in-time” documents that have not
3 been collected by LinkedIn.11 In support of this contention, the plaintiffs identify a single email
4 thread between Ms. Yoon and an API partner concerning LinkedIn’s termination of that partner’s
5 license.12 The thread shows that Ms. Yoon exchanged two letters with that partner during their
6 email correspondence, both of which “have not been produced.”13 The plaintiffs contend that
7 under the existing custodial framework, these letters will never be produced because Ms. Yoon,
8 who is not a custodian, is the sole LinkedIn employee on the transmittal emails.14
9 LinkedIn responds that there is no basis for additional custodians at this time. It argues that the
10 plaintiffs have failed to show that Ms. Yoon possesses any uniquely relevant or non-privileged
11 information that will not be collected from LinkedIn’s existing custodians.15 LinkedIn notes that
12 the email thread in question includes an existing custodian, Lee Womer.16
13 Analysis. The court denies this request without prejudice. The requesting party bears the
14 burden of showing that any additional custodian possesses “uniquely relevant information that is
15 not available from the sources already designated.” In re Facebook, 2021 WL 10282213, at *1.
16 The plaintiffs have not made that showing. In support of their request, the plaintiffs point to a
17 single email thread from LinkedIn’s production on which Ms. Yoon appears.17 But as LinkedIn
18 points out, Ms. Yoon is not the only LinkedIn employee on the identified email thread. Mr.
19 Womer appears on the first email in the thread — to which one of the unproduced letters is
20 attached — and on an email from January 7, 2022, after the second letter was transmitted.18 Mr.
21 Womer’s presence on the parent email and the January 7, 2022, email cuts against the plaintiffs’
22
23
11 Id. at 2.
12 Id.
24
13 Id.
25 14 Id. at 2–3.
26
15 Id. at 4.
16 Id.
27
17 Id. at 2.
1 assertion that Ms. Yoon possesses unique knowledge. It is plausible that the identified letters have
2 been captured by his custodial collections. Given LinkedIn’s custodial productions are still
3 ongoing, the plaintiffs’ request to add Ms. Yoon is premature.19
4 The plaintiffs’ request to add Ms. Yoon as a custodian is denied without prejudice. The
5 plaintiffs may renew their request if, after substantial completion and review of LinkedIn’s
6 production, LinkedIn has not produced or logged the identified letter attachments.20
7 1.2 Maggie Ly (LinkedIn’s API partner relationships/API access restrictions)
8 Summary of Dispute. The plaintiffs contend that Ms. Ly “managed LinkedIn’s API partner
9 relationships and was directly responsible for enforcing API access restrictions.”21 As with Ms.
10 Yoon, the plaintiffs argue that Ms. Ly is in possession of uniquely relevant information largely
11 based on a single email thread, which shows Ms. Ly inadvertently transmitting a confidential
12 document to a customer. The plaintiffs contend that this document, an attachment to an “earlier-in-
13 time” email in the thread, has not been produced.22 They argue it will only be produced if Ms. Ly
14 is designated as a custodian because she is the only LinkedIn employee on the transmittal email.23
15 LinkedIn responds that the plaintiffs have not shown that Ms. Ly possesses uniquely relevant
16 information for two reasons. First, it points out that Ms. Ly’s direct supervisors from 2019–2024,
17 David Vambre and Larry Nelson, are existing custodians whose files (including documents related
18 to API partnerships and strategy) are being reviewed as part of LinkedIn’s ongoing document
19 production.24 Second, LinkedIn asserts that two custodians, Messrs. Womer and Nelson, are on the
20 email thread that the plaintiffs identify, undercutting their contention that Ms. Ly has unique
21
22
19 The plaintiffs also argue that designating additional custodians will not impose an undue burden on
23 LinkedIn because it is using Technology-Assisted Review for its document production. Disc. Letter
Br. – ECF No. 176 at 3. This argument is mooted by the court’s conclusion that the plaintiffs’ request
24 to add Ms. Yoon and Ms. Ly as custodians is premature.
20 For clarity, the parties identify the letters as attachments to the email thread produced at
25 LI_CROWDER_00016959.
26
21 Disc. Letter Br. – ECF No. 176 at 2.
22 Id.
27
23 Id. at 2–3.
1 knowledge compared to already-designated sources.25 LinkedIn also represents that its custodial
2 productions to date are “not exhaustive” and that later productions “may yield the earlier-in-time
3 emails” sought by the plaintiffs.26
4 Analysis. The plaintiffs have not shown that Ms. Ly possesses uniquely relevant information
5 that is not available from the designated custodians. The plaintiffs’ reliance on the unproduced
6 confidential document is misplaced. The email thread shows that, upon her inadvertent transmittal
7 of this document to a customer, Ms. Ly forwarded the relevant email to Messrs. Vambre and
8 Womer, both of whom are designated custodians.27 Mr. Womer — not Ms. Ly — handled the
9 follow-up with the customer regarding the confidential document.28 The thread itself therefore
10 establishes a strong possibility that the unproduced email attachment will be captured by sources
11 already designated, namely, Mr. Womer or Mr. Vambre. Given LinkedIn’s ongoing custodial
12 productions, the plaintiffs’ request is premature.
13 The plaintiffs’ request to add Ms. Ly as a designated custodian is denied without prejudice. As
14 with Ms. Yoon, the plaintiffs may renew their request to add Ms. Ly as a custodian if, after
15 substantial completion and review of LinkedIn’s custodial productions, LinkedIn has not produced
16 or logged the identified email attachment.29
17
18 2. Plaintiffs’ RFP Nos. 24–26 (ECF No. 177)
19 The plaintiffs seek two categories of discovery from LinkedIn: (1) responses provided and
20 documents produced by LinkedIn in connection with any government antitrust investigations or
21 proceedings (RFP No. 24) and (2) documents and communications on the alleged DMIBE (RFP
22 Nos. 25–26):
23
24
25 Id.
25
26 Id. at 5.
26 27 Id. at 4; Email, Ex. C to Disc. Letter Br. – ECF No. 176-3 at 5.
27
28 Email, Ex. C to Disc. Letter Br. – ECF No. 176-3 at 2–5.
29 For clarity, the parties identify the attachment to the email thread produced at
RFP No. 24:
1
All responses provided, and Documents produced, in connection with any
2 government antitrust investigation, inquiry, or proceeding (whether or not LinkedIn
was the named target), including but not limited to any antitrust investigation,
3
inquiry, or proceeding by the United States Department of Justice; the Federal Trade
4 Commission; any state attorney general or department of justice; or the European
Commission.
5
RFP No. 25:
6 All Documents and communications concerning LinkedIn’s use of data, machine
learning, and inference in its professional social networking site and LinkedIn
7
Premium products.
8 RFP No. 26:
9 All Documents and communications evidencing or concerning the importance of
data, machine learning, and inference to launching or expanding a professional social
10 networking site and/or product.30
11
The court addresses the two categories of discovery requests in turn.
12
2.1 RFP No. 24
13
Courts will permit discovery into prior litigation or investigations where there is “significant
14
factual and legal overlap” with the present case. Schneider v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 16-
15
CV-02200-HSG (KAW), 2017 WL 1101799, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2017); Rumble, Inc. v.
16
Google LLC, No. 21-CV-00229-HSG (LJC), 2023 WL 3751797, at *7 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2023).
17
“This does not mean that the similarities are enough to require a carte blanche production of all
18
documents from the prior investigations.” Rumble, 2023 WL 3751797, at *7 (cleaned up). Parties
19
seeking discovery into prior litigation or investigations must still make proper discovery requests
20
and identify the documents they seek to obtain with specificity. Id.
21
RFP No. 24 seeks “all” responses and documents from “any” antitrust investigation, regardless
22
of whether LinkedIn was a named target of the investigation and without jurisdictional
23 limitations.31 This request is overbroad, and the plaintiffs’ broad-stroke assertions that “any”
24
government antitrust investigation would “almost certainly” overlap with its competition claims
25
26
27
30 RFP Nos. 24–26, Ex. A to Disc. Letter Br. – ECF No. 177-1 at 2–4.
1 do not resolve that threshold issue.32 The plaintiffs have not identified any specific government
2 antitrust investigations that LinkedIn participated in or was otherwise involved in. But LinkedIn
3 has; it identified the FTC’s investigation of Meta Platforms and two associated litigations, FTC v.
4 Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-03590 (D.D.C.) and Klein v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 20-cv-
5 08570 (N.D. Cal.).33 LinkedIn has agreed to reproduce the non-duplicative materials from the FTC
6 investigation and the two related litigations by reproducing the Klein production, which it asserts
7 encompasses all documents produced in the other two proceedings.34 LinkedIn has also
8 represented that it is working to identify other “U.S. antitrust investigations that involved topics
9 similar to the ones at issue here and where it may have produced relevant documents.”35 In
10 absence of the plaintiffs identifying any other litigation or investigations — and articulating how
11 those proceedings significantly overlap with the facts and legal issues here — LinkedIn’s proposal
12 is reasonable and proportional to the needs of the case.
13 The plaintiffs’ request is granted in part. Within twenty-one days of this order, LinkedIn must
14 reproduce all responses and documents it produced in connection with Klein, in a form that
15 complies with the court’s directives in Section 3 below. The plaintiffs’ request that LinkedIn
16 produce all documents responsive to RFP No. 24 is otherwise denied.
17 2.2 DMIBE-Related Requests (RFP Nos. 25–26)
18 A party requesting discovery must describe the items to be produced with “reasonable
19 particularity.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(1)(A). “All-encompassing demands that do not allow a
20 reasonable person to ascertain which documents are required do not meet the particularity standard
21 of Rule 34(b)(1)(A).” Reinsdorf v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., 296 F.R.D. 604, 616 (C.D. Cal. 2013)
22 (cleaned up). Courts will limit all-encompassing discovery requests by utilizing appropriate and
23 tailored search terms, narrowing custodians, and limiting timeframes. See, e.g., Rusoff v. Happy
24 Grp., Inc., No. 21-CV-08084-YGR (LJC), 2023 WL 114224, at *6–8 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2023); In
25
26
32 Disc. Letter Br. – ECF No. 177 at 2.
33 Id. at 4.
27
34 Id.
1 re Subpoenas to Lyfe Cap., Derek Yuan, & James Zhao, No. 25-MC-80399-LJC, 2026 WL
2 773094, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2026).
3 The DMIBE is “central” to the plaintiffs’ theories of liability.36 Discovery into the use and
4 importance of “data, machine learning, and inference” in LinkedIn’s professional networking site
5 and products is therefore relevant.37 But RFP Nos. 25 and 26 are “all-encompassing”; the requests
6 seek “all documents and communications” related to these topics.38 Reinsdorf, 296 F.R.D. at 616.
7 Without some limitation in scope, these requests do not satisfy Rule 34(b)’s particularity standard,
8 and they are disproportionate and unduly burdensome as written.
9 The parties offer different proposals for scoping the requests. The plaintiffs propose that
10 LinkedIn run search terms (provided by the plaintiffs) across all nineteen designated custodians.39
11 LinkedIn counter proposes that it will run additional search terms related to RFP Nos. 25 and 26
12 for four additional custodians who have direct knowledge of topics relevant to the requests.40 But
13 LinkedIn does not stipulate to the search terms it will run. It does not refuse to run the plaintiffs’
14 proposed search terms, but instead notes that the terms are “excessive” and that it is “evaluating
15 the burden of applying them.”41
16 A compromise between the parties’ proposals is reasonable. The relevance of the DMIBE to
17 the plaintiffs’ claims warrants discovery, but requiring LinkedIn to run new search terms across all
18 nineteen custodians is disproportionate to the needs of the case. LinkedIn has offered to run
19 additional search terms across four custodians who are likely to have relevant information to the
20 DMIBE.42 That is a reasonable and proportionate proposal, particularly where LinkedIn is already
21
22 36 Id. (“Indeed, the DMIBE is referred to in the FAC over 50 times.”).
23
37 Id.
38 RFP Nos. 25–26, Ex. A to Disc. Letter Br. – ECF No. 177-1 at 3–4.
24
39 Disc. Letter Br. – ECF No. 177 at 3.
25 40 Id. at 5 (identifying Ora Levit, Suhil Srinivas, and Gyanda Sachdeva, “the current and former heads
of LinkedIn Premium with insight into the importance and use of data and AI in that business,” and
26 Erran Berger, “who leads engineering for LinkedIn’s entire product portfolio and has insight into
LinkedIn’s use of data and AI more generally”).
27
41 Id.
1 running competition-related search terms across the custodial files of thirteen custodians.43
2 LinkedIn has represented that it is “evaluating” the burden of applying the plaintiffs’ provided
3 search terms.44 LinkedIn should complete that evaluation for the four new custodians so that the
4 parties may assess the burden to LinkedIn as compared to the potential relevance of the discovery.
5 The plaintiffs’ request is granted in part. Within twenty-one days of this order, LinkedIn must
6 run the plaintiffs’ proposed search terms against the four custodians it has identified and provide
7 hit counts for each custodian to the plaintiffs. The parties are further ordered to meet and confer on
8 the hit counts to discuss any potential narrowing of the plaintiffs’ proposed terms. The plaintiffs’
9 request that LinkedIn run the proposed search terms across all nineteen custodians is otherwise
10 denied.
11
12 3. Metadata, Readable Images, and Privilege Log Re LinkedIn’s Production (ECF No. 179)
13 The parties’ final dispute concerns LinkedIn’s Production Volume 23.45 Volume 23 was
14 produced on May 8, 2026.46 LinkedIn describes Volume 23 as a “go-and-get” production
15 responsive to the plaintiffs’ RFP No. 24, pulled from LinkedIn’s nonparty production in Klein.47
16 There are three disputes related to Volume 23: (1) whether LinkedIn must produce a privilege log
17 for redacted documents in the production set, (2) whether LinkedIn must produce readable
18 production images for all files in the production set, and (3) whether LinkedIn is required to
19 produce a metadata overlay for the production set that complies with Paragraph 6(f) of the Interim
20 ESI Order.
21
22
23
24
43 Id.
25
44 Id.
26 45 Contrary to LinkedIn’s assertion that there is no impasse, these issues are disputed and properly
before the court. Disc. Letter Br. – ECF No. 179 at 3.
27
46 Id. at 1.
1 3.1 Privilege Log
2 A party that withholds information on the basis of attorney-client privilege must substantiate
3 its privilege claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). The court’s standing order requires production of a
4 privilege log no later than fourteen days after the party’s disclosures or discovery responses are
5 due.48 This does not preclude the parties from stipulating to a different schedule.
6 The plaintiffs assert that LinkedIn has not produced a privilege log for its Volume 23
7 production.49 Volume 23 is comprised of files LinkedIn produced in the separate Klein action. The
8 plaintiffs identify multiple files with privilege-based redactions.50 LinkedIn does not dispute that it
9 has not provided a privilege log for Volume 23. It instead argues that creating a privilege log
10 would not be proportional to the needs of the case; it did not create a privilege log for the
11 production in Klein, and it contends doing so here would be “extremely time-consuming” and
12 result in “marginal utility.”51
13 LinkedIn is not excused from its obligations under Rule 26(b)(5) and this court’s standing
14 order to produce a privilege log for its Volume 23 production. There is no exception to the
15 standing order’s privilege-log requirement for documents reproduced from unrelated or separate
16 litigation. LinkedIn has produced redacted documents on the basis of attorney-client privilege in
17 this litigation; it must substantiate those redactions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). LinkedIn’s argument
18 that creating a privilege log would be disproportional to the needs of the case does not relieve it of
19 this obligation.52 Any burden to LinkedIn from reviewing and logging the redacted documents in
20 Volume 23 is of its own design; LinkedIn redacted the documents in the first instance, and it is
21 required to provide the basis for those redactions.
22
23
24 48 Standing Order for Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler at 3 (¶ 2.1); see also Interim ESI Order – ECF
No. 61 at 9 (¶ 8(b)) (“The parties agree to follow Magistrate Judge Beeler’s procedures governing the
25 production of privilege logs.”).
26
49 Disc. Letter Br. – ECF No. 179 at 1.
50 Id. at 2.
27
51 Id. at 5 n.3.
1 The plaintiffs’ request is granted. Within twenty-one days of this order, LinkedIn must serve a
2 privilege log compliant with Paragraph 8(b) of the Interim ESI Order and Paragraph 2.1 of the
3 court’s standing order for all documents in Volume 23 that were redacted or withheld on the basis
4 of attorney-client privilege. If this timeline is not sufficient, LinkedIn can propose a reasonable
5 timeline for the log.
6 3.2 Legible Images
7 Documents must be produced in a reasonably usable form. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E). The
8 plaintiffs contend that multiple documents in Volume 23 contain corrupt or illegible images that
9 cut off large portions of the documents.53 LinkedIn acknowledges this issue with the production
10 set but argues that Volume 23 was a go-and-get production pulled directly from the Klein
11 production itself, meaning the documents were produced in the same form as they were produced
12 in Klein.54 LinkedIn contends that this is “precisely what Plaintiffs’ RFP 24 requested.”55
13 The form in which documents were produced in Klein has no bearing on how the same
14 documents must be produced here. LinkedIn is obligated to produce all documents, in any
15 production volume, in a reasonably usable form. It has not done so with Volume 23. Its argument
16 that RFP No. 24 requests documents as they were produced in the underlying antitrust
17 investigation or proceeding is not supported by the plain language of the interrogatory.56
18 The plaintiffs’ request is granted as modified: LinkedIn must reproduce readable production
19 images of all documents in Volume 23 that contain corrupt or illegible images. LinkedIn must
20 produce the readable documents within twenty-one days of this order, absent stipulation of the
21 parties or further order of the court.
22
23
24
25
53 Id. at 1.
54 Id. at 3.
26
55 Id. at 3–4.
27 56 RFP No. 24, Ex. A to Disc. Letter Br. – ECF No. 177-1 at 2 (“All responses provided, and
Documents produced, in connection with any government antitrust investigation, inquiry, or
1 3.3 Metadata For Klein Production
2 The plaintiffs argue that LinkedIn must provide all metadata, including custodian identities
3 (beyond listing “LinkedIn” as a custodian) and accurate timestamps, for documents in the Volume
4 23 production.57 LinkedIn responds that it is working to reproduce the Klein production with all
5 reasonably accessible metadata, and that it has no obligation under Paragraph 6(f) of the Interim
6 ESI Order to manually populate any of the fields for which metadata is missing.58
7 Paragraph 6(f) provides:
8 Each of the metadata and coding fields set forth below that can be extracted from a
document shall be produced for that document, to the extent already in existence and
9 reasonably accessible or available. To the extent that metadata does not exist, is not
reasonably accessible or available, or would be unduly burdensome to collect, such
10
data need not be produced. The parties are not obligated to populate manually any of
11 the fields below if such fields cannot be extracted from a document, with the
exception of the following fields: (1) BEGBATES, (2) ENDBATES, (3)
12 BEGATTACH, (4) ENDATTACH, and (5) Custodian, which may be populated by
a party or its vendor.59
13
Requiring LinkedIn to collect the missing metadata from the source repository for each of the
14
1,099 documents in the Klein production — which would involve extensive searching, individual
15
review of each document, and manual input of additional metadata fields for each file — is
16
disproportionate to the needs of the case. It is also unnecessary. LinkedIn has represented that it is
17
working to reproduce the entirety of the Klein production with all available metadata, including
18
“SENTDATE,” “SENTTIME,” “FROM,” “TO,” and “AUTHOR.”60 This commitment satisfies
19
LinkedIn’s obligation under Paragraph 6(f) of the Interim ESI Order to produce metadata “to the
20
extent already in existence and reasonably accessible or available.”61 The Interim ESI Order does
21
not suggest that listing “LinkedIn” as the custodian of certain documents is unsatisfactory, and
22
more specific custodial identities may be provided when LinkedIn reproduces the Klein production
23
24
25 57 Disc. Letter Br. – ECF No. 177 at 3.
26
58 Id. at 4.
59 Interim ESI Order – ECF No. 61 at 6–7 (¶ 6(f)).
27
60 Disc. Letter Br. – ECF No. 179 at 4.
] with all available metadata. And the date-stamp issue identified by the plaintiffs is not something
2 || LinkedIn can remedy; it is a processing error that lies with Relativity. LinkedIn has shown it
3 || would be unduly burdensome to collect all the metadata the plaintiffs request for the K/ein
4 || production. The court will not require manual population of missing metadata fields.
5 The plaintiffs’ request is granted in part. LinkedIn must produce the full set of available
6 || metadata for the K/ein production, as it has already represented it will do. It is not required to
7 || manually input missing metadata fields for each document. The plaintiffs’ request is otherwise
8 denied.
9 CONCLUSION
10 This order resolves ECF Nos. 176, 177, and 179.
1]
a 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. LAE
13 Dated: June 30, 2026
LAUREL BEELER
14 United States Magistrate Judge
15
16
17
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 || © Disc. Letter Br. - ECF No. 179 at 5.