In re Telescopes Antitrust Litig.
In re Telescopes Antitrust Litig.
Case 5:20-cv-03642-EJD (N.D. Cal. 2022)
November 14, 2022

Demarchi, Virginia K.,  United States Magistrate Judge

Foreign Translation
Privilege Log
Clawback
Download PDF
To Cite List
Summary
The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs were in dispute with Defendants over the arrangements for reviewing inadvertently produced documents. The Court resolved the dispute and ordered Defendants to allow Plaintiffs to review certain documents, but denied Plaintiffs' request to copy Mandarin-language documents for machine translation.
Additional Decisions
IN RE TELESCOPES ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Case No. 20-cv-03639-EJD (VKD), Case No. 20-cv-03642-EJD (VKD)
United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
Filed November 14, 2022
Demarchi, Virginia K., United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER RE OCTOBER 28, 2022 DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE MACHINE TRANSLATION

Re: Dkt. No. 289

Re: Dkt. No. 269

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (“DPPs”) and Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (“IPPs”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) and Defendants ask the Court to resolve their dispute concerning arrangements for Plaintiffs’ review of inadvertently produced documents that Defendants contend contain sensitive, but non-responsive information. The Court finds this dispute suitable for resolution without oral argument. Civil. L.R. 7-1(b).[1]

DPPs’ and Defendants’ earlier dispute regarding Defendants’ inadvertent production of documents and the Court’s resolution of it are described in the Court’s August 22, 2022 order in Case No. 20-3642 (Dkt. No. 255). With respect to the documents encompassed by paragraph 3 at page 7 of the August 22 order, Defendants have agreed to allow Plaintiffs to review for relevance and responsiveness documents categorized as “financial” and “family,” even though Defendants say the logs they have produced are sufficient for this determination. Dkt. No. 289 at 3, 6-7. However, Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ copying any portion of these documents during their review. Id. Plaintiffs argue that they should be permitted to copy any Mandarin-language documents or text into machine-translation software, such as Google Translate, so that they can more easily assess whether a document is relevant and responsive. Id. at 4.

In resolving the earlier dispute, the Court did not order Defendants to make this collection of documents available to Plaintiffs for review; Defendants agreed to do so voluntarily, albeit with constraints on the protocol for such review. The Court will not now require Defendants to do more than the Court has already ordered or that they have already offered to do in making these documents available for Plaintiffs’ review. The Court denies Plaintiffs’ request for an order compelling Defendants to provide the documents in question in a manner that permits Plaintiffs to copy text from the documents for purposes of machine translation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 14, 2022

Footnotes
For convenience, all citations are to Case No. 20-3639 unless otherwise noted.