Schoenadel v. YouGov America, Inc.

Background

Tracy Schoenadel filed an internal grievance with YouGov America, Inc.’s human-resources department in December 2021. She alleged that the grievance concerned many of the gender-discrimination incidents described in her amended complaint. YouGov’s outside counsel interviewed Schoenadel and other employees, including Scott Horowitz, during the investigation. Schoenadel separated from YouGov on March 16, 2022. YouGov later informed her that it had not substantiated the grievance and produced a final investigation report.

Schoenadel requested the underlying investigation materials, including interview notes or memoranda. YouGov withheld the attorneys’ notes, asserting the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine. The attorney-client privilege generally protects confidential communications made for legal advice. The work-product doctrine generally protects materials prepared because of anticipated litigation.

Parties’ positions

Schoenadel argued that the investigation documents were created as part of YouGov’s ordinary internal grievance process and therefore were not prepared solely because of anticipated litigation. She also argued that YouGov had waived any privilege by asserting good-faith defenses and by questioning Horowitz at his deposition about what he said during his investigation interview. According to Schoenadel, YouGov intended to use the investigation and Horowitz’s statements to support its defense, making the underlying materials relevant.

YouGov argued that this was not an ordinary grievance investigation because Schoenadel had told the company that she had obtained counsel and was considering an external discrimination charge. YouGov said it retained outside counsel to investigate because litigation was likely and that the attorneys’ notes were protected work product. YouGov also argued that it did not intend to rely on the adequacy of the investigation or remedial measures, had already produced the unredacted report, and would use the investigation only for limited points, including that it began promptly, remained pending when Schoenadel left, and that Horowitz had lied during the investigation.

Court’s ruling

Judge Subramanian concluded that YouGov appeared likely to rely on its internal investigation at trial. The court stated that it was difficult to imagine relying on the investigation without implicitly suggesting that its results favored YouGov. The court also noted that YouGov acknowledged it intended to use at least some statements made to attorneys during the investigation, including Horowitz’s statements.

The court gave YouGov an election. If YouGov agreed not to rely on the investigation “in any way, shape or form,” it did not have to produce the attorneys’ notes. If YouGov chose to rely on the investigation, including by referring to Horowitz’s alleged lies, YouGov had to produce the notes by January 26, 2024. The court did not rule that the notes would necessarily be admissible at trial. It further stated that if YouGov declined to rely on the investigation but Schoenadel later opened the door at trial—for example, by claiming that YouGov did not take her internal grievance seriously—YouGov could rely on the investigation despite not having produced the notes.