Rodriguez v. Google LLC
Rodriguez v. Google LLC
2022 WL 1553461 (N.D. Cal. 2022)
May 13, 2022

Tse, Alex G.,  United States Magistrate Judge

ESI Protocol
Privilege Log
Attorney-Client Privilege
Download PDF
To Cite List
Summary
The court declined to amend the Electronic Stored Information (ESI) order to account for newly added plaintiffs, but did order that any non-privileged communications between the plaintiffs and their attorneys regarding the plaintiffs' account and device settings should be produced. Google, a sophisticated party, had agreed to the ESI order as-is.
Additional Decisions
ANIBAL RODRIGUEZ, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
GOOGLE LLC, Defendant
Case No. 20-cv-04688-RS (AGT)
United States District Court, N.D. California
Filed May 13, 2022

Counsel

Alexander Patrick Frawley, Ryan Sila, Pro Hac Vice, Steven M. Shepard, Pro Hac Vice, William Christopher Carmody, Pro Hac Vice, Shawn Jonathan Rabin, Susman Godfrey LLP, New York, NY, Alexander Justin Konik, Antonio LaValle Ingram, II, Beko Osiris Ra Reblitz-Richardson, Erika Britt Nyborg-Burch, Hsiao C. Mao, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, San Francisco, CA, Michael Francis Ram, Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group, San Francisco, CA, Amanda K. Bonn, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Los Angeles, CA, Ian B. Crosby, Pro Hac Vice, Jenna Golda Farleigh, Susman Godfrey LLP, Seattle, WA, James W. Lee, Pro Hac Vice, Rossana Baeza, Pro Hac Vice, Boies Schiller Flexner, Miami, FL, Jean Sutton Martin, Olusegun Amen, Ra, Ryan McGee, Pro Hac Vice, John A. Yanchunis, Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group, Tampa, FL, Jesse Michael Panuccio, Pro Hac Vice, Boies Schiller Flexner, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff Anibal Rodriguez.
David H. Kramer, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Palo Alto, CA, Alexander Patrick Frawley, Ryan Sila, Pro Hac Vice, Steven M. Shepard, Pro Hac Vice, William Christopher Carmody, Pro Hac Vice, Shawn Jonathan Rabin, Susman Godfrey LLP, New York, NY, Alexander Justin Konik, Antonio LaValle Ingram, II, Beko Osiris Ra Reblitz-Richardson, Erika Britt Nyborg-Burch, Hsiao C. Mao, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, San Francisco, CA, Michael Francis Ram, Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group, San Francisco, CA, Amanda K. Bonn, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Los Angeles, CA, Ian B. Crosby, Pro Hac Vice, Jenna Golda Farleigh, Susman Godfrey LLP, Seattle, WA, James W. Lee, Pro Hac Vice, Rossana Baeza, Pro Hac Vice, Boies Schiller Flexner, Miami, FL, Jean Sutton Martin, Olusegun Amen, Ra, John A. Yanchunis, Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group, Tampa, FL, Jesse Michael Panuccio, Pro Hac Vice, Boies Schiller Flexner, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs Sal Cataldo, Julian Santiago, Harold Nyanjom, Susan Lynn Harvey.
David H. Kramer, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Palo Alto, CA, Argemira Florez, Eduardo E. Santacana, Lori C. Arakaki, Simona Alessandra Agnolucci, Benedict Y. Hur, Attorney at Law Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant.
Tse, Alex G., United States Magistrate Judge

DISCOVERY ORDER

*1 Google wants two named plaintiffs to produce a log of any communications they had with their trial counsel after the complaint was filed, but before they were added to the case through the first amended complaint. Under the governing ESI order, Google isn't entitled to what it seeks.
 
This district's model ESI order states that “[c]ommunications involving trial counsel that post-date the filing of the complaint need not be placed on a privilege log.” Model Order ¶ 8(c) (emphasis added).[1] The parties adopted verbatim this provision in their own stipulated ESI order, which Judge Seeborg signed. See Dkt. 73 ¶ 8(b).
 
What Google now seeks, a log of any communications that two named plaintiffs had with their trial counsel after the complaint was filed, clearly isn't required by the ESI order. The ESI order states that post-complaint, trial counsel's communications need not be logged.
 
Google suggests that ¶ 8(c) in the model order is flawed, because it doesn't account for the fact that in some cases, especially in class actions, new plaintiffs may be added through an amended complaint. And when that happens, Google maintains that the newly added plaintiffs should be treated like the original plaintiffs, meaning that communications they had with trial counsel before they appeared in the case should be included on a privilege log.
 
Google may be right, and perhaps the model ESI order should be amended. But Google is a sophisticated party, and it agreed to adopt ¶ 8(c). No one forced Google to do so. Parties may modify the model order to fit the needs of their case; and Google knows this, as is evident from the fact that it did modify the model order in several respects. Compare Dkt. 73 ¶¶ 4–5, 8(a), with Model Order ¶¶ 4–5, 8(a)–(b). The undersigned won't now, after the fact, amend the parties' ESI order. Doing so “would upset the parties' relied-upon expectations,” as plaintiffs note, dkt. 237 at 6, and Google's second-guessing doesn't warrant such a drastic step.
 
Plaintiffs need not produce a log of communications they had with their trial counsel after the complaint was filed. To the extent, however, that plaintiffs and their attorneys had any non-privileged communications about plaintiffs' “account and device settings,” plaintiffs have agreed to produce those communications. Id.
 
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Footnotes
See Model Stipulated Order Re: Discovery of Electronically Stored Info (Standard Cases) (.doc), available at https://cand.uscourts.gov/forms/e-discovery-esi-guidelines/ (last visited May 13, 2022).