Olohan v. Google LLC
- Subramanian
- 1:22-cv-10163
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Olohan v. Google LLC, Judge Subramanian scheduled a conference on Olohan’s discovery dispute; the text does not show a ruling on the requested relief.
Ryan Olohan, Google LLC, and Tiffany Miller were affected by the scheduled conference and response deadline; the text does not show a final ruling on the discovery requests.
What happened
In Olohan v. Google LLC, Ryan Olohan asked the court to intervene in a discovery dispute concerning Google’s workplace investigation of Tiffany Miller. Olohan’s letter says he seeks evidence related to his sexual-harassment claims against Miller.
Olohan asked Google to produce investigation documents, conduct additional electronic searches, and provide a company witness to testify about the investigation. Olohan argued that Google’s claims of attorney-client and attorney-work-product protection did not justify withholding the materials, while Google relied on privilege and declined the additional searches and witness designation at that time.
Judge Arun Subramanian ordered a conference for January 31, 2024, and directed Google to respond to Olohan’s letter by January 30, 2024. The provided text does not show a ruling on whether Google must produce the documents, conduct the searches, or provide the witness.
The detailed version
- Olohan v. Google LLC · No. 1:22-cv-10163
- Subramanian
- Jan. 26, 2024
Background
The provided text consists of a letter from Olohan’s attorney requesting a court conference and a scheduling order signed by Judge Arun Subramanian. The letter states that Olohan brings an employment-discrimination action involving sexual-harassment claims against Tiffany Miller, including alleged groping and sexually suggestive comments at Google events.
The letter says Google investigated Miller’s conduct and issued her a written warning. It also says Google withheld 32 investigation documents and redacted portions of other documents based on attorney-client and attorney-work-product protection. These descriptions are presented in Olohan’s letter and are not resolved findings by the court.
Discovery dispute
Olohan asked the court to compel Google to produce the investigation documents and redacted material, or submit the documents for confidential court review if the court determined that privilege had not been waived. He also asked Google to conduct additional electronic searches concerning the investigation and designate a company witness to testify about it.
Olohan argued that the investigation materials were relevant to his claims and that Google had not established that they were prepared for anticipated litigation rather than for business or personnel purposes. He further argued that Google waived work-product protection by asserting a defense that relied on its efforts to prevent and promptly correct harassment. Google declined the additional searches and witness designation based on its privilege position, according to the letter.
Court’s action
Judge Subramanian ordered a conference concerning the dispute for January 31, 2024, at 11:00 a.m. by Microsoft Teams. The order also directed Google to file a response to Olohan’s letter by January 30, 2024, at 5:00 p.m.
The provided text does not state that the court granted or denied Olohan’s requested discovery relief. It therefore shows scheduling of a conference, not a decision resolving the privilege or discovery issues.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.