Crowder v. LinkedIn Corporation

Background

This putative antitrust class action concerns the market for professional social networking. The parties reached an impasse on three discovery disputes: (1) whether LinkedIn had to run a generative-artificial-intelligence search string across the files of four custodians and produce responsive documents; (2) whether LinkedIn had to provide unredacted or less-redacted versions of two documents it had clawed back as privileged; and (3) whether Keith Pradhan’s deposition should be reopened. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler for discovery matters.

Generative-AI search

The disputed search string was `("generative AI" OR GenAI OR LLM OR copilot OR GPT OR OpenAI) w/15 (LinkedIn OR Premium OR member! OR data)`. The plaintiffs sought documents responsive to Requests for Production Nos. 25 and 26 concerning LinkedIn’s use of data, machine learning, and inference. LinkedIn argued that the search was overbroad, burdensome, and disproportionate because it had already agreed to five other search strings and had begun rolling productions.

Judge Beeler held that the disputed search string targeted relevant documents. The court had previously recognized that the alleged Data, Machine Learning, and Inference Barrier to Entry was central to the plaintiffs’ liability theories. The court also found that the search was limited to four custodians who had previously been identified as having insight into LinkedIn’s use of data and artificial intelligence. LinkedIn did not provide specific estimates of the costs or time required for the review, and the court overruled its burden objections.

The plaintiffs’ motion to compel LinkedIn to run the search across the four custodians—Ora Levit, Gyanda Sachdeva, Suhil Srinivas, and Erran Berger—and produce responsive documents was granted. LinkedIn was ordered to complete production by September 16, 2026. If the close of fact discovery was extended, the production deadline would be extended to September 23, 2026.

The plaintiffs separately sought permission to reopen any deposition based on documents produced through the search. That request was denied without prejudice. The plaintiffs may renew it after production by making a witness-specific showing of good need.

Clawback challenges

The plaintiffs challenged two documents that LinkedIn had clawed back based on attorney-client privilege: LI_CROWDER_00268958 and LI_CROWDER_00417219. They asked the court to review the documents privately and order production in unredacted or less-redacted form. LinkedIn did not oppose private review but maintained that the redacted material was privileged.

Because the documents had not been provided to the court, Judge Beeler could not determine whether the redacted material was privileged. The plaintiffs’ motion to compel unredacted or less-redacted versions was therefore denied without prejudice. The plaintiffs may renew the motion by submitting the documents for private court review, which is commonly called in camera review.

Keith Pradhan’s deposition

The plaintiffs deposed Keith Pradhan on August 24, 2026. According to the plaintiffs, he discussed his testimony with LinkedIn’s counsel during breaks, and counsel instructed him not to answer questions about the substance of those discussions. LinkedIn said Mr. Pradhan testified that his answers were his own and were not influenced by counsel, and it argued that the deposition should not be reopened.

Judge Beeler applied decisions from the Northern District of California holding that a witness and attorney may not discuss the substance of testimony during deposition breaks, except to discuss whether testimony is privileged. The court also held that the underlying facts about those discussions are not privileged. Because the court did not have the deposition transcript, it could not fully evaluate the privilege instructions, but it concluded that instructions not to answer questions about generic identifying facts of the discussions were improper.

The plaintiffs’ motion to reopen Mr. Pradhan’s deposition was granted. The plaintiffs may examine him remotely for one hour, limited to non-privileged discussions he had with counsel about his testimony during breaks at the August 24 deposition. The court directed counsel for both parties not to confer with witnesses about the substance of their testimony while a deposition is ongoing, except to discuss whether testimony is privileged.

Other discovery matters and disposition

The court did not rule on the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition or any other discovery issues beyond those addressed in the order. The order states that it resolves ECF No. 285.