Crowder et al v. LinkedIn Corporation

ORDER – No. 22-cv-00237-HSG (LB)
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 Francisco Division
TODD CROWDER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LINKEDIN CORPORATION,
Defendant.
Case No. 22-cv-00237-HSG (LB)
DISCOVERY ORDER
Re: ECF Nos. 176, 177, 179
INTRODUCTION
The parties have discovery disputes in this putative class action, where the plaintiffs claim
monopolization and attempted monopolization from practices that allegedly allow LinkedIn to
overcharge Premium subscribers, in violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act. The two categories of
alleged anticompetitive conduct are (1) offering potential rivals access to LinkedIn’s private user
data through application-programming interfaces (API) unavailable to others, on the condition that
the rivals do not compete with LinkedIn, and (2) integrating LinkedIn’s user data with parent
company Microsoft’s Azure cloud product, thereby “tying up and driving up prices for scarce
hardware resources.”1
1 Order Den. Prelim. Approval – ECF No. 135 at 1–2 (summarizing complaint); Disc. Letter Brs. –
ECF Nos. 176, 177, & 179. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (ECF); pinpoint
citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.
Case 4:22-cv-00237-HSG Document 202 Filed 07/01/26 Page 1 of 15

ORDER – No. 22-cv-00237-HSG (LB) 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
The three discovery disputes are (1) whether LinkedIn must add two custodians in response to
the plaintiffs’ requests for production related to LinkedIn’s API agreements and alleged
anticompetitive conduct (ECF No. 176), (2) whether LinkedIn must produce documents
responsive to the plaintiffs’ RFP Nos. 24–26 concerning government antitrust investigations and
the alleged Data, Machine Learning, and Inference Barrier to Entry (DMIBE) (ECF No. 177), and
(3) whether LinkedIn must serve a privilege log, produce legible images, and produce certain
categories of metadata for its Production Volume 23 pursuant to Paragraphs 6(f) and 8(b) of the
Interim ESI Order and Paragraph 2.1 of this court’s standing order (ECF No. 179).2 Fact discovery
closes September 18, 2026.3
For ECF No. 176, the plaintiffs’ request to add two custodians — Angela Yoon and Maggie
Ly — is denied without prejudice. Document production is ongoing, and the request is premature.
The plaintiffs have not shown that either possesses uniquely relevant information that is not
available from any of LinkedIn’s nineteen designated custodians. The plaintiffs may renew their
request if, after substantial completion and review of LinkedIn’s production, they determine that
LinkedIn has not produced or logged the documents identified by the plaintiffs in ECF 176.4
For ECF No. 177, the court grants the plaintiffs’ request in part. For RFP No. 24, LinkedIn
must reproduce all responses and documents it produced in connection with Klein v. Meta
Platforms, Inc., No. 20-cv-08570 (N.D. Cal.). For RFP Nos. 25–26, LinkedIn must run the
plaintiffs’ proposed search terms against the four custodians it has identified and provide hit
counts for each custodian to the plaintiffs. The parties must meet and confer on the hit counts to
discuss any narrowing of the plaintiffs’ proposed terms. The plaintiffs’ request that LinkedIn run
its proposed search terms across all nineteen custodians is otherwise denied.
For ECF No. 179, the court grants the plaintiffs’ request in part. LinkedIn must serve a
privilege log for its Volume 23 production in compliance with the Interim ESI Order and this
2 Disc. Letter Brs. – ECF Nos. 176, 177, 179.
3 Scheduling Order – ECF No. 143 at 1.
4 Disc. Letter Br. – ECF No. 176 at 4 (identifying unproduced email attachments to documents
produced at LI_CROWDER_00016959 and LI_CROWDER_00042389).
Case 4:22-cv-00237-HSG Document 202 Filed 07/01/26 Page 2 of 15

ORDER – No. 22-cv-00237-HSG (LB) 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
court’s standing order, and it must reproduce readable production images for any file in Volume
23 that contains illegible or corrupt images. The plaintiffs’ request that LinkedIn produce all
metadata for the Volume 23 production set is denied. LinkedIn must produce the full set of
available metadata for the Klein production, as it has offered to do. The Interim ESI Order does
not require that LinkedIn manually input missing metadata fields, and it would be unduly
burdensome to LinkedIn if ordered to do so.
LEGAL STANDARD
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s
claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the
issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant
information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and
whether the burden of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this
scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b).
“Pretrial discovery is ordinarily accorded a broad and liberal treatment.” Peng v. Nw. Mut. Life
Ins. Co., No. 17-cv-01760-SI, 2017 WL 3007030, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2017) (cleaned up)
(quoting Shoen v. Shoen, 5 F.3d 1289, 1292 (9th Cir. 1993)). Moreover, “[t]he test for relevance is
not overly exacting: evidence is relevant if it has ‘any tendency to make . . . more or less probable
. . . [a] fact [that] is of consequence in determining the action.’” In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel”
Mktg., Sales Pracs., & Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC), 2018 WL 340640, at *1
(N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2018) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 401).
The party moving to compel discovery “has the initial burden of establishing that the
information sought is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the
case.” Impinj, Inc. v. NXP USA, Inc., No. 19-cv-03161-YGR (AGT), 2022 WL 16586886, at *2
(N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2022) (cleaned up). The party resisting discovery bears the burden of showing
that the discovery should not be allowed and of supporting its objections with competent evidence.
Lofton v. Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC, 308 F.R.D. 276, 281 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Under Rule 26(b),
the court must limit discovery that is “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative,” obtainable from a
Case 4:22-cv-00237-HSG Document 202 Filed 07/01/26 Page 3 of 15

ORDER – No. 22-cv-00237-HSG (LB) 4
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
less burdensome source, or where the burden “outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(1), (2)(C).
The responding party generally is “in a better position” to identify those employees “most
likely to possess responsive ESI.” Emerson v. Iron Mountain Info. Mgmt. Servs., Inc., No. 20-cv
08607-YGR (AGT), 2021 WL 8085488, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2021). That said, a requesting
party may obtain additional custodians upon a showing that the disputed custodians “possess
uniquely relevant information that is not available from the sources already designated.” In re
Facebook, Inc. Consumer Priv. User Profile Litig., No. 3:18-MD-02843-VC-JSC, 2021 WL
10282213, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2021).
ANALYSIS
1. Custodians for LinkedIn’s Document Production (ECF No. 176)
This is another dispute about LinkedIn’s designated custodians.5 On April 6, 2026, the court
ordered LinkedIn to designate nineteen custodians and held that additional custodians may be
ordered only on a showing that they “possess uniquely relevant information that is not available
from the sources already designated.”6 LinkedIn began its custodial productions on April 27,
2026.7 It represents that its custodial productions are ongoing.8 The parties dispute the number of
custodial documents that LinkedIn has produced to date.9
The plaintiffs now seek to add two additional custodians: Angela Yoon and Maggie Ly.
1.1 Angela Yoon (Director, Competition & Regulatory)
Summary of Dispute. Ms. Yoon is an in-house attorney and “Director, Competition and
Regulatory” at LinkedIn.10 The plaintiffs contend that they have a particularized need for Ms.
5 See Disc. Letter Br. – ECF No. 162 (concerning LinkedIn custodians).
6 Order – ECF No. 170 at 7 (quoting In re Facebook, 2021 WL 10282213, at *1).
7 Disc. Letter Br. – ECF No 176 at 1.
8 Id. at 5.
9 Compare id. at 1 (plaintiffs contend LinkedIn has produced 7,430 custodial documents), with id. at 5
n.4 (LinkedIn contends it “has produced over 39,000 documents”).
10 Id. at 2, 4 n.3.
Case 4:22-cv-00237-HSG Document 202 Filed 07/01/26 Page 4 of 15

ORDER – No. 22-cv-00237-HSG (LB) 5
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
Yoon’s custodial files because she managed LinkedIn’s response to a “competition law dispute”
with an API partner, and her files will likely contain “earlier-in-time” documents that have not
been collected by LinkedIn.11 In support of this contention, the plaintiffs identify a single email
thread between Ms. Yoon and an API partner concerning LinkedIn’s termination of that partner’s
license.12 The thread shows that Ms. Yoon exchanged two letters with that partner during their
email correspondence, both of which “have not been produced.”13 The plaintiffs contend that
under the existing custodial framework, these letters will never be produced because Ms. Yoon,
who is not a custodian, is the sole LinkedIn employee on the transmittal emails.14
LinkedIn responds that there is no basis for additional custodians at this time. It argues that the
plaintiffs have failed to show that Ms. Yoon possesses any uniquely relevant or non-privileged
information that will not be collected from LinkedIn’s existing custodians.15 LinkedIn notes that
the email thread in question includes an existing custodian, Lee Womer.16
Analysis. The court denies this request without prejudice. The requesting party bears the
burden of showing that any additional custodian possesses “uniquely relevant information that is
not available from the sources already designated.” In re Facebook, 2021 WL 10282213, at *1.
The plaintiffs have not made that showing. In support of their request, the plaintiffs point to a
single email thread from LinkedIn’s production on which Ms. Yoon appears.17 But as LinkedIn
points out, Ms. Yoon is not the only LinkedIn employee on the identified email thread. Mr.
Womer appears on the first email in the thread — to which one of the unproduced letters is
attached — and on an email from January 7, 2022, after the second letter was transmitted.18 Mr.
Womer’s presence on the parent email and the January 7, 2022, email cuts against the plaintiffs’
11 Id. at 2.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id. at 2–3.
15 Id. at 4.
16 Id.
17 Id. at 2.
18 Id. at 4; Email, Ex. B to Disc. Letter Br. – ECF No. 176-2 at 2–3.
Case 4:22-cv-00237-HSG Document 202 Filed 07/01/26 Page 5 of 15

ORDER – No. 22-cv-00237-HSG (LB) 6
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
assertion that Ms. Yoon possesses unique knowledge. It is plausible that the identified letters have
been captured by his custodial collections. Given LinkedIn’s custodial productions are still
ongoing, the plaintiffs’ request to add Ms. Yoon is premature.19
The plaintiffs’ request to add Ms. Yoon as a custodian is denied without prejudice. The
plaintiffs may renew their request if, after substantial completion and review of LinkedIn’s
production, LinkedIn has not produced or logged the identified letter attachments.20
1.2 Maggie Ly (LinkedIn’s API partner relationships/API access restrictions)
Summary of Dispute. The plaintiffs contend that Ms. Ly “managed LinkedIn’s API partner
relationships and was directly responsible for enforcing API access restrictions.”21 As with Ms.
Yoon, the plaintiffs argue that Ms. Ly is in possession of uniquely relevant information largely
based on a single email thread, which shows Ms. Ly inadvertently transmitting a confidential
document to a customer. The plaintiffs contend that this document, an attachment to an “earlier-in-
time” email in the thread, has not been produced.22 They argue it will only be produced if Ms. Ly
is designated as a custodian because she is the only LinkedIn employee on the transmittal email.23
LinkedIn responds that the plaintiffs have not shown that Ms. Ly possesses uniquely relevant
information for two reasons. First, it points out that Ms. Ly’s direct supervisors from 2019–2024,
David Vambre and Larry Nelson, are existing custodians whose files (including documents related
to API partnerships and strategy) are being reviewed as part of LinkedIn’s ongoing document
production.24 Second, LinkedIn asserts that two custodians, Messrs. Womer and Nelson, are on the
email thread that the plaintiffs identify, undercutting their contention that Ms. Ly has unique
19 The plaintiffs also argue that designating additional custodians will not impose an undue burden on
LinkedIn because it is using Technology-Assisted Review for its document production. Disc. Letter
Br. – ECF No. 176 at 3. This argument is mooted by the court’s conclusion that the plaintiffs’ request
to add Ms. Yoon and Ms. Ly as custodians is premature.
20 For clarity, the parties identify the letters as attachments to the email thread produced at
LI_CROWDER_00016959.
21 Disc. Letter Br. – ECF No. 176 at 2.
22 Id.
23 Id. at 2–3.
24 Id. at 4.
Case 4:22-cv-00237-HSG Document 202 Filed 07/01/26 Page 6 of 15

ORDER – No. 22-cv-00237-HSG (LB) 7
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
knowledge compared to already-designated sources.25 LinkedIn also represents that its custodial
productions to date are “not exhaustive” and that later productions “may yield the earlier-in-time
emails” sought by the plaintiffs.26
Analysis. The plaintiffs have not shown that Ms. Ly possesses uniquely relevant information
that is not available from the designated custodians. The plaintiffs’ reliance on the unproduced
confidential document is misplaced. The email thread shows that, upon her inadvertent transmittal
of this document to a customer, Ms. Ly forwarded the relevant email to Messrs. Vambre and
Womer, both of whom are designated custodians.27 Mr. Womer — not Ms. Ly — handled the
follow-up with the customer regarding the confidential document.28 The thread itself therefore
establishes a strong possibility that the unproduced email attachment will be captured by sources
already designated, namely, Mr. Womer or Mr. Vambre. Given LinkedIn’s ongoing custodial
productions, the plaintiffs’ request is premature.
The plaintiffs’ request to add Ms. Ly as a designated custodian is denied without prejudice. As
with Ms. Yoon, the plaintiffs may renew their request to add Ms. Ly as a custodian if, after
substantial completion and review of LinkedIn’s custodial productions, LinkedIn has not produced
or logged the identified email attachment.29
2. Plaintiffs’ RFP Nos. 24–26 (ECF No. 177)
The plaintiffs seek two categories of discovery from LinkedIn: (1) responses provided and
documents produced by LinkedIn in connection with any government antitrust investigations or
proceedings (RFP No. 24) and (2) documents and communications on the alleged DMIBE (RFP
Nos. 25–26):
25 Id.
26 Id. at 5.
27 Id. at 4; Email, Ex. C to Disc. Letter Br. – ECF No. 176-3 at 5.
28 Email, Ex. C to Disc. Letter Br. – ECF No. 176-3 at 2–5.
29 For clarity, the parties identify the attachment to the email thread produced at
LI_CROWDER_00042389.
Case 4:22-cv-00237-HSG Document 202 Filed 07/01/26 Page 7 of 15

ORDER – No. 22-cv-00237-HSG (LB) 8
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
RFP No. 24:
All responses provided, and Documents produced, in connection with any
government antitrust investigation, inquiry, or proceeding (whether or not LinkedIn
was the named target), including but not limited to any antitrust investigation,
inquiry, or proceeding by the United States Department of Justice; the Federal Trade
Commission; any state attorney general or department of justice; or the European
Commission.
RFP No. 25:
All Documents and communications concerning LinkedIn’s use of data, machine
learning, and inference in its professional social networking site and LinkedIn
Premium products.
RFP No. 26:
All Documents and communications evidencing or concerning the importance of
data, machine learning, and inference to launching or expanding a professional social
networking site and/or product.30
The court addresses the two categories of discovery requests in turn.
2.1 RFP No. 24
Courts will permit discovery into prior litigation or investigations where there is “significant
factual and legal overlap” with the present case. Schneider v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 16-
CV-02200-HSG (KAW), 2017 WL 1101799, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2017); Rumble, Inc. v.
Google LLC, No. 21-CV-00229-HSG (LJC), 2023 WL 3751797, at *7 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2023).
“This does not mean that the similarities are enough to require a carte blanche production of all
documents from the prior investigations.” Rumble, 2023 WL 3751797, at *7 (cleaned up). Parties
seeking discovery into prior litigation or investigations must still make proper discovery requests
and identify the documents they seek to obtain with specificity. Id.
RFP No. 24 seeks “all” responses and documents from “any” antitrust investigation, regardless
of whether LinkedIn was a named target of the investigation and without jurisdictional
limitations.31 This request is overbroad, and the plaintiffs’ broad-stroke assertions that “any”
government antitrust investigation would “almost certainly” overlap with its competition claims
30 RFP Nos. 24–26, Ex. A to Disc. Letter Br. – ECF No. 177-1 at 2–4.
31 Id. at 2 (RFP No. 24).
Case 4:22-cv-00237-HSG Document 202 Filed 07/01/26 Page 8 of 15

ORDER – No. 22-cv-00237-HSG (LB) 9
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
do not resolve that threshold issue.32 The plaintiffs have not identified any specific government
antitrust investigations that LinkedIn participated in or was otherwise involved in. But LinkedIn
has; it identified the FTC’s investigation of Meta Platforms and two associated litigations, FTC v.
Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-03590 (D.D.C.) and Klein v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 20-cv-
08570 (N.D. Cal.).33 LinkedIn has agreed to reproduce the non-duplicative materials from the FTC
investigation and the two related litigations by reproducing the Klein production, which it asserts
encompasses all documents produced in the other two proceedings.34 LinkedIn has also
represented that it is working to identify other “U.S. antitrust investigations that involved topics
similar to the ones at issue here and where it may have produced relevant documents.”35 In
absence of the plaintiffs identifying any other litigation or investigations — and articulating how
those proceedings significantly overlap with the facts and legal issues here — LinkedIn’s proposal
is reasonable and proportional to the needs of the case.
The plaintiffs’ request is granted in part. Within twenty-one days of this order, LinkedIn must
reproduce all responses and documents it produced in connection with Klein, in a form that
complies with the court’s directives in Section 3 below. The plaintiffs’ request that LinkedIn
produce all documents responsive to RFP No. 24 is otherwise denied.
2.2 DMIBE-Related Requests (RFP Nos. 25–26)
A party requesting discovery must describe the items to be produced with “reasonable
particularity.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(1)(A). “All-encompassing demands that do not allow a
reasonable person to ascertain which documents are required do not meet the particularity standard
of Rule 34(b)(1)(A).” Reinsdorf v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., 296 F.R.D. 604, 616 (C.D. Cal. 2013)
(cleaned up). Courts will limit all-encompassing discovery requests by utilizing appropriate and
tailored search terms, narrowing custodians, and limiting timeframes. See, e.g., Rusoff v. Happy
Grp., Inc., No. 21-CV-08084-YGR (LJC), 2023 WL 114224, at *6–8 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2023); In
32 Disc. Letter Br. – ECF No. 177 at 2.
33 Id. at 4.
34 Id.
35 Id. at 2.
Case 4:22-cv-00237-HSG Document 202 Filed 07/01/26 Page 9 of 15

ORDER – No. 22-cv-00237-HSG (LB) 10
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
re Subpoenas to Lyfe Cap., Derek Yuan, & James Zhao, No. 25-MC-80399-LJC, 2026 WL
773094, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2026).
The DMIBE is “central” to the plaintiffs’ theories of liability.36 Discovery into the use and
importance of “data, machine learning, and inference” in LinkedIn’s professional networking site
and products is therefore relevant.37 But RFP Nos. 25 and 26 are “all-encompassing”; the requests
seek “all documents and communications” related to these topics.38 Reinsdorf, 296 F.R.D. at 616.
Without some limitation in scope, these requests do not satisfy Rule 34(b)’s particularity standard,
and they are disproportionate and unduly burdensome as written.
The parties offer different proposals for scoping the requests. The plaintiffs propose that
LinkedIn run search terms (provided by the plaintiffs) across all nineteen designated custodians.39
LinkedIn counter proposes that it will run additional search terms related to RFP Nos. 25 and 26
for four additional custodians who have direct knowledge of topics relevant to the requests.40 But
LinkedIn does not stipulate to the search terms it will run. It does not refuse to run the plaintiffs’
proposed search terms, but instead notes that the terms are “excessive” and that it is “evaluating
the burden of applying them.”41
A compromise between the parties’ proposals is reasonable. The relevance of the DMIBE to
the plaintiffs’ claims warrants discovery, but requiring LinkedIn to run new search terms across all
nineteen custodians is disproportionate to the needs of the case. LinkedIn has offered to run
additional search terms across four custodians who are likely to have relevant information to the
DMIBE.42 That is a reasonable and proportionate proposal, particularly where LinkedIn is already
36 Id. (“Indeed, the DMIBE is referred to in the FAC over 50 times.”).
37 Id.
38 RFP Nos. 25–26, Ex. A to Disc. Letter Br. – ECF No. 177-1 at 3–4.
39 Disc. Letter Br. – ECF No. 177 at 3.
40 Id. at 5 (identifying Ora Levit, Suhil Srinivas, and Gyanda Sachdeva, “the current and former heads
of LinkedIn Premium with insight into the importance and use of data and AI in that business,” and
Erran Berger, “who leads engineering for LinkedIn’s entire product portfolio and has insight into
LinkedIn’s use of data and AI more generally”).
41 Id.
42 Id.
Case 4:22-cv-00237-HSG Document 202 Filed 07/01/26 Page 10 of 15

ORDER – No. 22-cv-00237-HSG (LB) 11
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
running competition-related search terms across the custodial files of thirteen custodians.43
LinkedIn has represented that it is “evaluating” the burden of applying the plaintiffs’ provided
search terms.44 LinkedIn should complete that evaluation for the four new custodians so that the
parties may assess the burden to LinkedIn as compared to the potential relevance of the discovery.
The plaintiffs’ request is granted in part. Within twenty-one days of this order, LinkedIn must
run the plaintiffs’ proposed search terms against the four custodians it has identified and provide
hit counts for each custodian to the plaintiffs. The parties are further ordered to meet and confer on
the hit counts to discuss any potential narrowing of the plaintiffs’ proposed terms. The plaintiffs’
request that LinkedIn run the proposed search terms across all nineteen custodians is otherwise
denied.
3. Metadata, Readable Images, and Privilege Log Re LinkedIn’s Production (ECF No. 179)
The parties’ final dispute concerns LinkedIn’s Production Volume 23.45 Volume 23 was
produced on May 8, 2026.46 LinkedIn describes Volume 23 as a “go-and-get” production
responsive to the plaintiffs’ RFP No. 24, pulled from LinkedIn’s nonparty production in Klein.47
There are three disputes related to Volume 23: (1) whether LinkedIn must produce a privilege log
for redacted documents in the production set, (2) whether LinkedIn must produce readable
production images for all files in the production set, and (3) whether LinkedIn is required to
produce a metadata overlay for the production set that complies with Paragraph 6(f) of the Interim
ESI Order.
43 Id.
44 Id.
45 Contrary to LinkedIn’s assertion that there is no impasse, these issues are disputed and properly
before the court. Disc. Letter Br. – ECF No. 179 at 3.
46 Id. at 1.
47 Id. at 3.
Case 4:22-cv-00237-HSG Document 202 Filed 07/01/26 Page 11 of 15

ORDER – No. 22-cv-00237-HSG (LB) 12
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
3.1 Privilege Log
A party that withholds information on the basis of attorney-client privilege must substantiate
its privilege claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). The court’s standing order requires production of a
privilege log no later than fourteen days after the party’s disclosures or discovery responses are
due.48 This does not preclude the parties from stipulating to a different schedule.
The plaintiffs assert that LinkedIn has not produced a privilege log for its Volume 23
production.49 Volume 23 is comprised of files LinkedIn produced in the separate Klein action. The
plaintiffs identify multiple files with privilege-based redactions.50 LinkedIn does not dispute that it
has not provided a privilege log for Volume 23. It instead argues that creating a privilege log
would not be proportional to the needs of the case; it did not create a privilege log for the
production in Klein, and it contends doing so here would be “extremely time-consuming” and
result in “marginal utility.”51
LinkedIn is not excused from its obligations under Rule 26(b)(5) and this court’s standing
order to produce a privilege log for its Volume 23 production. There is no exception to the
standing order’s privilege-log requirement for documents reproduced from unrelated or separate
litigation. LinkedIn has produced redacted documents on the basis of attorney-client privilege in
this litigation; it must substantiate those redactions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). LinkedIn’s argument
that creating a privilege log would be disproportional to the needs of the case does not relieve it of
this obligation.52 Any burden to LinkedIn from reviewing and logging the redacted documents in
Volume 23 is of its own design; LinkedIn redacted the documents in the first instance, and it is
required to provide the basis for those redactions.
48 Standing Order for Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler at 3 (¶ 2.1); see also Interim ESI Order – ECF
No. 61 at 9 (¶ 8(b)) (“The parties agree to follow Magistrate Judge Beeler’s procedures governing the
production of privilege logs.”).
49 Disc. Letter Br. – ECF No. 179 at 1.
50 Id. at 2.
51 Id. at 5 n.3.
52 Id.
Case 4:22-cv-00237-HSG Document 202 Filed 07/01/26 Page 12 of 15

ORDER – No. 22-cv-00237-HSG (LB) 13
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
The plaintiffs’ request is granted. Within twenty-one days of this order, LinkedIn must serve a
privilege log compliant with Paragraph 8(b) of the Interim ESI Order and Paragraph 2.1 of the
court’s standing order for all documents in Volume 23 that were redacted or withheld on the basis
of attorney-client privilege. If this timeline is not sufficient, LinkedIn can propose a reasonable
timeline for the log.
3.2 Legible Images
Documents must be produced in a reasonably usable form. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E). The
plaintiffs contend that multiple documents in Volume 23 contain corrupt or illegible images that
cut off large portions of the documents.53 LinkedIn acknowledges this issue with the production
set but argues that Volume 23 was a go-and-get production pulled directly from the Klein
production itself, meaning the documents were produced in the same form as they were produced
in Klein.54 LinkedIn contends that this is “precisely what Plaintiffs’ RFP 24 requested.”55
The form in which documents were produced in Klein has no bearing on how the same
documents must be produced here. LinkedIn is obligated to produce all documents, in any
production volume, in a reasonably usable form. It has not done so with Volume 23. Its argument
that RFP No. 24 requests documents as they were produced in the underlying antitrust
investigation or proceeding is not supported by the plain language of the interrogatory.56
The plaintiffs’ request is granted as modified: LinkedIn must reproduce readable production
images of all documents in Volume 23 that contain corrupt or illegible images. LinkedIn must
produce the readable documents within twenty-one days of this order, absent stipulation of the
parties or further order of the court.
53 Id. at 1.
54 Id. at 3.
55 Id. at 3–4.
56 RFP No. 24, Ex. A to Disc. Letter Br. – ECF No. 177-1 at 2 (“All responses provided, and
Documents produced, in connection with any government antitrust investigation, inquiry, or
proceeding . . . .” (emphasis added)).
Case 4:22-cv-00237-HSG Document 202 Filed 07/01/26 Page 13 of 15

ORDER – No. 22-cv-00237-HSG (LB) 14
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
3.3 Metadata For Klein Production
The plaintiffs argue that LinkedIn must provide all metadata, including custodian identities
(beyond listing “LinkedIn” as a custodian) and accurate timestamps, for documents in the Volume
23 production.57 LinkedIn responds that it is working to reproduce the Klein production with all
reasonably accessible metadata, and that it has no obligation under Paragraph 6(f) of the Interim
ESI Order to manually populate any of the fields for which metadata is missing.58
Paragraph 6(f) provides:
Each of the metadata and coding fields set forth below that can be extracted from a
document shall be produced for that document, to the extent already in existence and
reasonably accessible or available. To the extent that metadata does not exist, is not
reasonably accessible or available, or would be unduly burdensome to collect, such
data need not be produced. The parties are not obligated to populate manually any of
the fields below if such fields cannot be extracted from a document, with the
exception of the following fields: (1) BEGBATES, (2) ENDBATES, (3)
BEGATTACH, (4) ENDATTACH, and (5) Custodian, which may be populated by
a party or its vendor.59
Requiring LinkedIn to collect the missing metadata from the source repository for each of the
1,099 documents in the Klein production — which would involve extensive searching, individual
review of each document, and manual input of additional metadata fields for each file — is
disproportionate to the needs of the case. It is also unnecessary. LinkedIn has represented that it is
working to reproduce the entirety of the Klein production with all available metadata, including
“SENTDATE,” “SENTTIME,” “FROM,” “TO,” and “AUTHOR.”60 This commitment satisfies
LinkedIn’s obligation under Paragraph 6(f) of the Interim ESI Order to produce metadata “to the
extent already in existence and reasonably accessible or available.”61 The Interim ESI Order does
not suggest that listing “LinkedIn” as the custodian of certain documents is unsatisfactory, and
more specific custodial identities may be provided when LinkedIn reproduces the Klein production
57 Disc. Letter Br. – ECF No. 177 at 3.
58 Id. at 4.
59 Interim ESI Order – ECF No. 61 at 6–7 (¶ 6(f)).
60 Disc. Letter Br. – ECF No. 179 at 4.
61 Interim ESI Order – ECF No. 61 at 6–7 (¶ 6(f)).
Case 4:22-cv-00237-HSG Document 202 Filed 07/01/26 Page 14 of 15

ORDER – No. 22-cv-00237-HSG (LB) 15
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
with all available metadata. And the date-stamp issue identified by the plaintiffs is not something
LinkedIn can remedy; it is a processing error that lies with Relativity.62 LinkedIn has shown it
would be unduly burdensome to collect all the metadata the plaintiffs request for the Klein
production. The court will not require manual population of missing metadata fields.
The plaintiffs’ request is granted in part. LinkedIn must produce the full set of available
metadata for the Klein production, as it has already represented it will do. It is not required to
manually input missing metadata fields for each document. The plaintiffs’ request is otherwise
denied.
CONCLUSION
This order resolves ECF Nos. 176, 177, and 179.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 30, 2026 ______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge
62 Disc. Letter Br. – ECF No. 179 at 5.
Case 4:22-cv-00237-HSG Document 202 Filed 07/01/26 Page 15 of 15