Dunbar v. Google, Inc.

Filing 244

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION re 215 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of Plaintiff's Notice of Motion, Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Discovery Responses filed by Keith Dunbar. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on January 8, 2013. (psglc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/8/2013)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 8 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 KEITH DUNBAR, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE, INC., Defendant. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: C 12-3305 LHK ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION (Re: Docket No. 215) 17 Earlier today the parties appeared for hearing on a motion to compel discovery responses 18 brought by Plaintiff Keith Dunbar (“Dunbar”). Defendant Google, Inc. (“Google”) opposes the 19 motion. In a nutshell, Dunbar wants Google to supplement its production of documents responsive 20 to its first set of requests, specifically Requests Nos. 1, 2, 12(6), and 12(30). The requests arise 21 from Dunbar’s claim that Google violates 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511(1)(a) and (1)(d) by intercepting 22 emails sent to Gmail users by others and thereafter using the content acquired from therein. 23 Dunbar claims that in doing so Google avoids paying third parties “traffic acquisition costs” for the 24 same type of data and content. 25 To avoid any unnecessary further delay in this case, the court will dispense with a lengthy 26 discussion of background and the parties’ respective arguments. In light of Judge Koh’s orders 27 allowing Dunbar to file a third amended complaint and setting a schedule for Dunbar’s motion for 28 1 Case No.: C 12-3305 LHK (PSG) ORDER 1 class certification, and the disappointing pace of supplemental document production in the many 2 months since transfer of this case from the Eastern District of Texas, the court instead simply rules 3 as follows: 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Google shall complete its production of documents 5 relating PHIL, keywords, and four other categories identified at lines 6-7 of page 12 of its 6 opposition, including the three specific documents referenced in Dunbar’s motion and 7 acknowledged by Google at line 8 on page 12 of its opposition; 8 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Google shall complete its production of documents identified at lines 12-15 of page 123 of its opposition. These documents are limited to all United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 “overview” documents from Google’s internal wikis and other central sources. To the extent 11 Dunbar requires details beyond the overview provided by these overview documents, Dunbar may 12 move again for relief. This balance best achieves the goals set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C); 13 and 14 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Google shall complete this production no later than January 25, 2013. 16 All other relief requested, including an order requiring production of metadata in other 17 Gmail users’ inboxes, is DENIED. Even if Dunbar were only seeking production of the email 18 communications in which he was the “originator” (for which a voluntary exception could apply 19 under 18 U.S.C. § 2702(b)(3)), Google may not be compelled to produce the emails and associated 20 metadata that it maintains in electronic storage subject to the Stored Communications Act. 1 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: January 8, 2013 23 _________________________________ PAUL S. GREWAL United States Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27 1 28 See 18 U.S.C. § 2702; In re Request For Order Requiring Facebook, Inc. to Produce Documents & Things, Case No. C 12-80171 LHK (PSG) (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2012). 2 Case No.: C 12-3305 LHK (PSG) ORDER