Brown v. Google LLC
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-03664
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Brown v. Google LLC, Judge Van Keulen denied plaintiffs’ administrative motion and terminated Google’s motion to strike as moot.
The ruling affected the plaintiffs’ requests for sanctions or additional discovery concerning Google’s document production, and Google’s related motion to strike. The plaintiffs’ motion was denied, and Google’s motion to strike was terminated as moot.
What happened
In Brown v. Google LLC, the plaintiffs challenged Google’s handling of documents it had withheld as protected by attorney-client privilege. They asked the court to prevent Google from using some documents or to reopen discovery so they could take limited depositions at Google’s expense.
The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion as procedurally improper. It explained that the relief sought was governed by a federal rule, that any motion to compel was filed after the applicable deadline, and that sanctions motions had to use a different filing and briefing process. Because the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion on procedural grounds, it did not need to decide Google’s motion to strike the supporting exhibit.
Judge Susan Van Keulen denied the plaintiffs’ administrative motion as procedurally improper and terminated Google’s motion to strike as moot.
The detailed version
- Brown v. Google LLC · No. 4:20-cv-03664
- Yvonne Rogers
- Sept. 26, 2022
Background
The parties previously identified disputes concerning entries on Google’s privilege log and redactions in documents. The court ordered Google to review additional documents and produce documents that were no longer properly withheld as privileged. Google’s production was due to begin by June 27, 2022, and end by July 25, 2022.
After reviewing some, but not all, of the 1,370 documents Google produced, the plaintiffs filed an administrative motion. They sought either an order preventing Google from using certain documents or an order reopening discovery for limited depositions, with Google required to pay the related reasonable expenses and attorney fees. Google also moved to strike Exhibit A to a supporting declaration, arguing that the exhibit contained improper conclusions and argument.
Reasons for the Ruling
The court held that the plaintiffs’ administrative motion was procedurally improper. The district’s administrative-motion procedure is limited to miscellaneous administrative matters not otherwise governed by a federal statute, federal rule, local rule, or the assigned judge’s standing order. The plaintiffs relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b) for both requested sanctions, so the court concluded that an administrative motion was not the proper procedure.
The court also stated that, even if the filing were treated as a motion to compel discovery, it was late. Under the applicable local rule, such a motion was due within seven days after the discovery cutoff. Because Google’s production was due by July 25, 2022, the latest filing date would have been August 1, 2022. The plaintiffs filed their administrative motion on August 8, 2022.
The court further concluded that the motion did not follow the required procedure for sanctions motions. Those motions had to be noticed and use the standard briefing schedule and page limits, while administrative motions had a shorter opposition deadline and a five-page limit. The court noted that the plaintiffs had used the noticed-motion procedure for two earlier discovery-sanctions motions in the case.
Disposition
Judge Susan Van Keulen DENIED the plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion as procedurally improper. The court TERMINATED AS MOOT Google’s Motion to Strike because of that ruling. The opinion does not decide whether the documents were actually privileged, whether sanctions were warranted, or whether discovery should otherwise be reopened.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.