Lozada v. TaskUs, Inc.

Background

The court held an August 20, 2024 conference concerning discovery disputes raised by both sides. The order states that some rulings were based on the conference discussion and, in some instances, the parties’ agreements.

Rulings on the Plaintiffs’ Discovery Issues

* Executive Leadership Team materials: TaskUs was ordered to search for and produce responsive documents in the “ELT centralized folder”; communications showing that responsive materials were sent to Executive Leadership Team members; calendar invitations found using the terms “ELT” and “Executive Leadership Team”; and any responsive Google chats not already produced. The production deadline was September 26, 2024. The parties were also directed to meet and confer about a subset of custodians whose individual Google Drive accounts should be searched. * Messages on personal devices: TaskUs was ordered to produce responsive text and WhatsApp messages on the personal devices of Defendants Maddock, Dixit, Kumar, and Mehta by September 12, 2024. * Number of depositions: The plaintiffs’ request to exceed the ten-deposition limit contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was denied at this time because they had not shown cause for the additional depositions. The ruling was without prejudice to the plaintiffs submitting a properly supported application in the future. * Jobvite programming: TaskUs’s counsel was ordered to make further inquiry into whether TaskUs had records showing the programming for the Jobvite system that existed before a 2018 change and, if such records existed, to produce them. * Headcount and attrition data: The parties were directed to meet and confer about the plaintiffs’ position that TaskUs’s production was insufficient and to continue working toward a resolution. * Former-employee productions: The court found that this issue was no longer in dispute based on the parties’ representations.

Rulings on the Defendants’ Discovery Issues

The court ruled that the plaintiffs were not entitled to text and WhatsApp messages on the personal devices of the current TaskUs employee and three former TaskUs employees identified in the defendants’ August 7 letter. The court cited the parties’ prior negotiations and the plaintiffs’ failure to show that the requested discovery was relevant and proportionate. In all other respects, the defendants’ objections to the plaintiffs’ subpoenas directed to non-party witnesses were denied. The court stated that the defendants generally lacked standing to object to those subpoenas and had not shown that the plaintiffs engaged in harassment or other improper conduct.

The defendants’ request that the plaintiffs search the personal devices of Plaintiff Lozada and three representatives of Plaintiff Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System for relevant text and WhatsApp messages was denied. The court relied on quoted deposition testimony indicating that the devices would not contain discoverable information and on the defendants’ failure to provide a reason to believe otherwise.

Additional Directions and Effect

The parties were directed to submit a joint status letter about the state of discovery by September 30, 2024. The Clerk was directed to close Docket No. 100. This was a discovery order; it did not decide the merits of the parties’ underlying claims.