Yu v. ByteDance Inc.

Background

The parties submitted six discovery disputes. The court reviewed their joint and separate letter briefs, a deposition transcript, and exhibits from Yintao Yu’s deposition. Fact discovery had ended on August 1, and trial was scheduled for November 18, 2024. The court stated that trial would be limited to whether Yu signed employment agreements containing arbitration clauses or whether his signatures on those documents were forgeries.

Rulings

1. Docket No. 111 — documents bearing Yu’s signature. ByteDance Inc.’s motion to compel production of documents reflecting Yu’s signature was granted in part. Yu had produced two documents but had not produced, among other items, copies of driver’s licenses, passports, or tax returns. The court found that Yu had control over official documents bearing his signature and ordered him to request copies of passports valid during 2016–2017. He was required to submit those requests by August 15, 2024.

2. Docket No. 113 — forensic examination of Yu’s iPhone. ByteDance Inc.’s request was denied. The court found that the intrusive and broad discovery was not warranted, particularly given the case’s limited focus.

3. Docket No. 114 — anonymous declarant and sanctions. ByteDance Inc.’s request for an unredacted copy of the anonymous declarant’s declaration, communications with that declarant, and sanctions was denied. The court agreed that ByteDance Inc. could have questioned Yu about his interactions with the declarant during his deposition or through written questions but had not done so. The court also declined to order production of privileged mediation documents or allow further discovery after the cutoff.

4. Docket No. 115 — subpoena to Sutter Health. Yu’s motion to quash the subpoena was granted in part. The court found that documents containing Yu’s signature were relevant but private medical information was not. Yu’s counsel was ordered to review Sutter Health’s production and redact private medical information before ByteDance Inc. reviewed the documents. If the documents contained an arbitration agreement, that agreement also had to be produced. The court agreed that the existence of such an agreement was not necessarily inconsistent with Yu’s deposition testimony.

5. Docket No. 118 — agreements for other California employees. Yu’s motion to compel production of ECIAA agreements for California employees was denied. The court found that Yu had not shown why agreements signed by other employees were relevant to whether his signature on the ECIAA was forged.

6. Docket No. 119 — Slack and Lark documents. The provided opinion text is incomplete at the point where it states the disposition of Yu’s motion. The court found that a request for all communications between Yu and ByteDance Inc. on Lark was overbroad and not proportional to the limited issue in the case, and it required no further Lark documents. The court found Slack communications about Yu’s onboarding relevant and ordered ByteDance Inc. to request those communications from Slack under the parties’ existing electronic-discovery protocol by August 15, 2024.

Effect of the Order

The order resolved discovery requests; it did not decide whether Yu signed the employment agreements or whether his signatures were forged. The order is signed by Susan Illston, United States District Judge.