Johnson v. L'Oreal USA
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:18-cv-09786
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Johnson v. L'Oréal USA, Judge Schofield ordered L'Oréal to respond by July 16, 2020, to Johnson's discovery letter.
Amanda Johnson and L'Oréal USA; the order required L'Oréal USA to submit a letter response by July 16, 2020.
What happened
Amanda Johnson asked the court to address what she described as L'Oréal USA's discovery failures in her employment case. She said L'Oréal had not produced requested text messages and other electronic records, had not provided certain search information, and had withheld materials about an internal investigation by asserting privilege.
Johnson asked the court to require additional production, provide information about litigation holds and electronic searches, and address possible improper withholding or loss of evidence. She also requested a conference about these disputes after the parties' discussions did not resolve them.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield did not decide those discovery requests in this order. The court ordered L'Oréal USA to file a letter response by July 16, 2020.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. L'Oreal USA · No. 1:18-cv-09786
- Lorna Schofield
- July 10, 2020
Background
Amanda Johnson's attorneys asked for a pre-motion conference under the judge's individual rules and the local discovery rule. The letter said the parties had discussed discovery issues during 2019 and again on June 2 and July 1, 2020, but had not resolved them.
Discovery disputes raised by Johnson
Johnson asserted that L'Oréal had produced few or no text messages as part of its electronic discovery, including messages that L'Oréal allegedly relied on in explaining her termination. She asked the court to require production under the parties' electronic-discovery protocol and to address L'Oréal's stated plan to search only certain custodians and communications concerning her firing.
Johnson also asserted that L'Oréal had not completed agreed searches for other electronic records, had not provided requested search-result counts, and may not have searched an entire relevant email domain. She said L'Oréal had produced some relevant material only after she challenged the sufficiency of its production. Based on these circumstances, she raised possible intentional withholding or loss of evidence and requested additional electronic records, search-result counts, and information about litigation holds.
The letter separately challenged L'Oréal's refusal to produce materials concerning its investigation of Johnson's allegations. L'Oréal had asserted attorney-client privilege and work-product protection. Johnson argued that factual witness statements and documents were not protected and that L'Oréal had put the investigation at issue by relying on it in its defense and in public statements about Johnson's allegations. The letter also described a disagreement about whether the parties had agreed that Johnson would not seek this investigation-related discovery.
Order
The court did not rule on whether L'Oréal had violated its discovery obligations, whether any privilege had been waived, whether evidence had been lost, or whether sanctions or additional production should be ordered. Instead, Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered: "Defendant shall file a letter response by July 16, 2020."
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.