From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re High-Tech Emp. Antitrust Litig.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Mar 15, 2013
Master Docket No. 11-CV-2509-LHK (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2013)

Opinion

Master Docket No. 11-CV-2509-LHK

03-15-2013

IN RE HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL ACTIONS


ORDER RE: REDACTIONS FOR LACK OF

RELEVANCE AND/OR RESPONSIVENESS

On March 14, 2013, Defendants submitted statements regarding the number of documents each Defendant has redacted based on lack of relevance and/or responsiveness. The Court will not permit Defendants to redact information based on Defendants' unilateral assessment of lack of relevance and/or responsiveness. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that all Defendants produce any documents that they have redacted for lack of relevance and/or responsiveness in their un-redacted form by March 19, 2013. The parties may meet and confer to agree upon the redaction of these documents for public filings or use at a hearing or at trial.

With the exception of redactions for privilege and/or redactions to protect the private information of non-parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge


Summaries of

In re High-Tech Emp. Antitrust Litig.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Mar 15, 2013
Master Docket No. 11-CV-2509-LHK (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2013)
Case details for

In re High-Tech Emp. Antitrust Litig.

Case Details

Full title:IN RE HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

Date published: Mar 15, 2013

Citations

Master Docket No. 11-CV-2509-LHK (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2013)

Citing Cases

In re Uber Techs., Passenger Sexual Assault Litig.

See Shenwick v. Twitter, Inc., No. 16-CV-05314-JST (SK), 2018 WL 833085, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2018) (“In…

DiGiacinto v. RB Health (U.S.) LLC

Doe v. Trump, 329 F.R.D. 262, 275 (W.D. Wash. 2018); see In re High-Tech Emp. Antitrust Litig., No.…