Rowe v. Google LLC
- Rearden
- 1:19-cv-08655
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rowe v. Google, Judge Rearden denied Google’s request to exclude Thomas Kurian’s testimony, limiting questions to his knowledge of the lawsuit.
Ulku Rowe and Google LLC, particularly their presentation of Thomas Kurian’s testimony at trial.
What happened
In Rowe v. Google LLC, Ulku Rowe planned to call Thomas Kurian as a witness in support of her claims against Google LLC. She identified internal Google emails from September 18 and 19, 2019, as showing what the company knew about her lawsuit.
Google objected and asked the court to exclude Kurian’s testimony because it argued the testimony was irrelevant or could create unfair problems at trial. Rowe’s case included retaliation claims, for which she had to show that Google knew she had engaged in protected activity.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden denied Google’s request. The court ruled that testimony about Google’s knowledge of the lawsuit was relevant and allowed Kurian to testify, but only about his knowledge of the lawsuit as shown in the identified emails.
The detailed version
- Rowe v. Google LLC · No. 1:19-cv-08655
- Rearden
- Sept. 29, 2023
Background
The parties submitted a Second Amended Joint Pretrial Order identifying the witnesses they expected to call at trial. Ulku Rowe identified Thomas Kurian as a witness concerning his knowledge of the lawsuit, as indicated in Exhibit P83. That exhibit contained internal Google emails dated September 18 and 19, 2019. Rowe argued that the emails showed corporate knowledge of her September 17, 2019 complaint.
Google’s objection
Google LLC objected to Kurian’s identification as a witness and sought to exclude his testimony under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403. Rule 401 concerns whether evidence is relevant. Rule 403 permits relevant evidence to be excluded when its usefulness is substantially outweighed by dangers such as unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, undue delay, or cumulative presentation.
Court’s ruling
The court denied Google’s application. It explained that Rowe’s case was based in part on claims that Google retaliated against her for filing the lawsuit. To prove retaliation, Rowe had to establish, among other things, that Google was aware she had engaged in protected activity. The court therefore found testimony about Google’s knowledge of the lawsuit relevant. Unless the parties stipulated that Google had this knowledge as of September 2019, Kurian’s testimony would be permitted.
The court limited the examination. Kurian could be questioned only about “his knowledge of the lawsuit as indicated in Exhibit P83.” Within that limit, the court found that the testimony’s usefulness was not substantially outweighed by the concerns listed in Rule 403.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.