Rowe v. Google LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:19-cv-08655
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rowe v. Google LLC, Judge Schofield directed the parties to report on discovery and its COVID-19 effects before a requested discovery-compulsion motion.
The order affected Ulku Rowe and Google LLC by requiring both parties to report on the status of discovery and the pandemic’s effect on completing it.
What happened
Rowe v. Google LLC concerns the plaintiff’s request for additional employment-discrimination discovery from Google, including information about potential comparators, discrimination complaints, and electronic records.
The plaintiff said Google’s responses were incomplete and asked for a conference before moving to compel discovery. The parties also jointly requested more time because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield directed the parties to file a joint letter explaining what discovery was complete, what remained, and how the pandemic affected the remaining discovery. The provided text does not state that the court granted or denied the requested motion to compel or schedule extension.
The detailed version
- Rowe v. Google LLC · No. 1:19-cv-08655
- Lorna Schofield
- Apr. 22, 2020
Background
The provided text concerns discovery in Ulku Rowe’s case against Google LLC. Rowe’s counsel requested a conference before filing a motion to compel, which is a request for the court to order another party to provide disputed discovery. The request covered three subjects: information about possible male comparators, complaints of gender discrimination, and electronically stored information, or ESI.
Rowe’s counsel said the plaintiff had served document requests and interrogatories and that the parties had exchanged responses and met and conferred about disputes. The plaintiff contended that Google had not provided all responsive information about potential comparators, had limited its search for discrimination complaints, and had not conducted an ESI search using proposed custodians and search terms. The letter also identified other allegedly incomplete discovery, including pay studies, information about employment and role changes, and people with knowledge relevant to the claims.
Parties’ Positions
The plaintiff argued that comparator discovery could help identify which employees were properly comparable, rather than requiring the plaintiff to establish comparator status before receiving the information. The plaintiff also argued that complaints of gender discrimination and related investigations could bear on discriminatory intent, Google’s knowledge, and the requested damages. Google objected to the comparator requests on the ground that the plaintiff had not shown that the individuals were true comparators, according to the plaintiff’s letter.
The parties jointly requested an extension of the discovery schedule because of the COVID-19 pandemic and unresolved disputes that could affect the scheduled May 4 close of document discovery. The text says this was the second request for an extension and that the parties submitted a proposed amended schedule.
Court’s Action
Judge Lorna G. Schofield directed the parties to file a joint letter by April 27, 2020, explaining what discovery had been completed, what discovery remained, and how the COVID-19 pandemic affected the remaining discovery. The provided text does not state that the court granted or denied the requested pre-motion conference, motion to compel, or extension of the discovery schedule. It also does not provide a ruling on the merits of Rowe’s employment claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.