Rodriguez

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 ANIBAL RODRIGUEZ, et al., Case No. 20-cv-04688-RS (AGT) Plaintiffs,

DISCOVERY ORDER RE: ESI

v. CUSTODIANS GOOGLE LLC, Re: Dkt. Nos. 154, 155, 162 Defendant. The plaintiffs have adequately explained why the nineteen Google employees they seek to add as custodians have ESI relevant to this case. See Dkt. 163. Google, meanwhile, hasn’t con- || vinced the Court that the burden or expense of adding these custodians outweighs the likely benefit. || Having reached these conclusions, the Court orders Google to designate the nineteen employees in || question as ESI custodians. At this juncture, the Court wasn’t asked to evaluate the scope of any particular ESI search, and so doesn’t do so. a The motion to seal portions of the plaintiffs’ supplemental letter brief (Dkt. 162) is denied. || Google, the designating party, hasn’t convinced the Court that “specific…