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 denied Olohan’s motion to compel documents and searches concerning Google’s workplace investigation.
Ryan Olohan’s effort to obtain documents and electronic searches concerning Google’s investigation of Tiffany Miller was denied; Google was not compelled to produce those materials or conduct the additional searches.
What happened
Olohan sued Google and Tiffany Miller in an employment discrimination case involving allegations of sexual harassment. He sought documents and electronic searches concerning Google’s investigation of Miller’s conduct.
Google maintained that the investigation materials were protected because its lawyers directed the investigation in anticipation of litigation. Olohan argued that the materials should be produced and that Google should conduct additional electronic searches.
Judge Subramanian denied Olohan’s motion to compel. The court concluded that the investigation was privileged and that the request for additional searches was untimely; it noted that Olohan’s counsel could depose people involved in the investigation.
The detailed version
- Olohan v. Google LLC · No. 1:22-cv-10163
- Subramanian
- Feb. 1, 2024
Background
The case is an employment discrimination action in which Ryan Olohan alleges that Tiffany Miller sexually harassed him at Google events, including through groping and sexually suggestive comments. Google investigated allegations concerning Miller and issued her a written warning. Olohan sought to compel Google to produce investigation documents and redacted portions of documents, conduct additional electronic searches, and provide a witness to testify about the investigation.
Privilege and Discovery Requests
The court treated the investigation materials as protected by attorney-client or attorney work-product privilege. Work-product privilege generally protects materials prepared because of anticipated litigation. The court found that the investigation occurred in anticipation of litigation: Olohan was fired on August 5, 2022; his counsel sent Google a demand letter and draft complaint in October 2022; and, on November 18, 2022, Google’s counsel directed human-resources personnel to investigate allegations concerning Miller.
The court also found that Olohan had not identified conduct by Google that waived the privilege. Google had not produced the investigation materials to Miller and was not relying on the investigation in its defense. The court therefore did not compel production of the investigation documents.
The court separately declined to compel additional electronic searches. It found that the request was untimely because Google had produced the written warning in September 2023 and had identified the people involved in the investigation as early as October 2023. The court noted that Olohan’s counsel remained free to depose those individuals.
Disposition
The court denied Olohan’s motion to compel and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at docket entry 50. The order also directed Olohan to respond to Miller’s motion by a February 2024 deadline, but the specific day is not legible in the provided text.
Judge
The order was issued by Judge Arun Subramanian of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.