No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Court denied Google LLC's motion to strike the affidavit of non-party witness Bryant Key, finding that a single deposition non-appearance does not warrant the extreme sanction of preclusion without prior efforts to compel compliance. The Court ordered the parties to reschedule Key's deposition within two weeks, with the affidavit excluded from summary judgment consideration if Key fails to appear.
Olohan v. Google LLC: Court Rules on Witness Evidence
What Happened
An employee filed a lawsuit against Google claiming discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment. During the case, a witness named Bryant Key was supposed to be questioned under oath (called a deposition) but didn't show up. Google asked the court to prevent Key's written statement from being used as evidence in the case.
What the Court Decided
The court rejected Google's request. The judge ruled that simply missing one deposition appointment isn't serious enough to ban someone's statement from evidence. The court ordered the parties to schedule Key's deposition again within two weeks. If Key fails to appear this second time, then his statement cannot be used in the final decision.
Why This Matters for Workers
This ruling protects employees by ensuring that witness evidence isn't thrown out too easily. It requires employers to make reasonable efforts to get witnesses to comply before taking extreme measures. This gives workers a fairer chance to present their case by allowing multiple opportunities to gather important testimony.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Other orders and opinions in Olohan from the same court.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.