Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01824/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01824-36/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:621 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ROBERT HEATH, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GOOGLE LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-01824-BLF 

ORDER CLARIFYING SCOPE OF 

DISCOVERY

[Re: ECF 357]

Before the Court is Defendant Google LLC’s (“Google”) Motion for Clarification or, in 

the Alternative, Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration (“Motion”). See Mot., ECF 

357. Through this motion, Google seeks clarification as to whether a pending discovery dispute 

should be submitted to the magistrate judge, or whether Google must instead seek leave to file a 

motion for reconsideration of a previous order that Plaintiffs argue foreclosed the disputed 

discovery.

In his July 27, 2017 discovery dispute order, Magistrate Judge Lloyd relied on this Court’s 

discussions with the parties about the scope of discovery to determine what “level of discovery 

[Google] may be allowed to obtain from the opt-in[] [Plaintiffs].” “Order,” ECF 185 at 1. Based 

on his understanding that this Court believed “it should be limited discovery, not full discovery,”

he prescribed a discovery plan allowing for written discovery sent to 75 opt-in Plaintiffs and 

depositions of 35 Plaintiffs. Id. at 2. This Court later upheld the scope of discovery set forth in 

that Order, referencing, in part, discussions held at the June 6, 2017 Case Management Conference

(“CMC,” ECF 173) and the case Wellens v. Daiichi Sankyo Inc., No. C-13-00581-WHO(DMR), 2014 

WL 7385990 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2014). See ECF 199; 207.

Through its present motion, Google requests clarification of Judge Lloyd’s Order and this 

Case 5:15-cv-01824-BLF Document 384 Filed 09/27/18 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Court’s subsequent approval thereof. Google believes that this limitation applied only to discovery 

pre-certification (i.e., pre-denial of decertification) of the collective action. See Mot. at 1. By contrast, 

Plaintiffs believe this Court and Magistrate Judge Lloyd’s Order limited Google to this discovery 

scope for the entirety of discovery (though it admits that “additional discovery relating to the Opt-Ins’

damages and mitigation damages may be necessary in Phase II”). Opp. at 4–5 & n.1, ECF 364. 

Because decertification was denied, Google now seeks additional discovery from the Opt-Ins prior to 

trial and requests the Court clarify whether this issue is an open one, such that the related discovery 

dispute would go to the magistrate judge. Mot. at 1–3.

The Court finds it clear from the record that Judge Lloyd’s Order limiting discovery applied 

only to pre-decertification discovery. This Court expressly stated as much at the June 6, 2017 case 

management conference, stating “I think that in terms of allowing Google to oppose or to bring forth a 

de-cert motion, that [it] is appropriate that Google have access to enough information to highlight the 

most disparate group of plaintiffs to establish that they are not similarly situated.” CMC at 8:13–17; 

see also CMC at 7:11–8:4 (discussing discovery “[i]n terms of the liability phase”). And the Court 

referenced Wellens, 2014 WL 7385990 as persuasive, a case dealing explicitly with the scope of 

discovery pre-decertification. Likewise, the transcript from the hearing in front of Judge Lloyd on the 

underlying discovery dispute makes clear that he also had certification in mind. There, he discussed 

certain requested discovery by stating, “I don’t see how it goes to the question of decertification.” 

Hearing Tr. at 8:22–23, ECF 192; see also Hearing Tr. at 10:8–12 (“I’m just not overwhelmed by the 

argument of the defense that they need damage information to show that there’s a diversity of potential 

damages . . . and that that factor would weigh in whether or not the class should remain certified or 

not.”). As such, this Court finds that the scope of discovery was limited only for the purposes of 

decertification.

To be clear, the present Order clarifies only that Magistrate Judge Lloyd’s Order did not set the 

scope of discovery outside of that necessary for decertification. This order does not address the proper 

scope of any non-decertification discovery, or whether a request for any such discovery at this time 

would be timely. Those matters should be addressed to the magistrate judge responsible for discovery 

disputes.

Case 5:15-cv-01824-BLF Document 384 Filed 09/27/18 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2018

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-01824-BLF Document 384 Filed 09/27/18 Page 3 of 3