Rowe v. Google LLC

Background

The parties submitted a joint letter identifying discovery disputes that required the court’s attention. A telephone conference had been scheduled for June 4, 2020.

Rulings on discovery disputes

The court canceled the scheduled conference.

For the dispute about Level 8 and Level 9 comparator information, the court ordered Google to produce the “snapshot” for 2018 and 2019 and to identify whether each person listed in the 2017, 2018, and 2019 snapshots was at Level 8 or Level 9.

For the dispute about Level 10 comparator information, the order required production of the requested information for the six Vice President or Head of Industry roles under Mr. Shaukat.

The court found the dispute about Google’s searches for electronically stored information premature because the parties had not yet met and discussed Plaintiff’s latest proposals and Google’s counter-proposals. Any remaining dispute after appropriate negotiations was to be raised with the Magistrate Judge, and the order stated that a referral would issue separately.

Redactions and privilege logs

The court stated that it generally would not allow a party to unilaterally redact information from responsive documents merely because the party considered the information non-responsive or sensitive. Google was ordered to reproduce, in non-redacted form, all documents that had been redacted for reasons other than privilege, a legal protection for certain confidential communications and materials. Any remaining redactions had to be included in the privilege log, a list identifying withheld or redacted material and the basis for withholding it.

The parties could propose an amended protective order, or raise the issue with the Magistrate Judge, if necessary to protect sensitive information that was not privileged. The order also stated that an amended case-management plan and scheduling order would issue separately.