Rodriguez et al v. Google LLC et al

Filing 248

Order by Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse resolving #247 Discovery Letter Brief. (agtlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2022)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ANIBAL RODRIGUEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 20-cv-04688-RS (AGT)
DISCOVERY ORDER

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 247
GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant.

12

Google must produce the Incognito-mode financial study in dispute. See Dkt. 247 at 3–6.

13

Plaintiffs have persuaded the Court that their expert may be able to use the study to reason by

14

analogy in calculating unjust-enrichment damages in this case. The production burden is negligible,

15

and if the proposed analogy doesn’t work, Google can challenge it in a Daubert motion.

16

Google need not produce “all WAA-off financial analyses,” as plaintiffs demand. Id. at 4

17

(emphasis in original). This case is principally about how Google’s WAA-off disclosures square

18

with the company’s use of Firebase to collect app-usage data. To the extent that Google performed

19

WAA-off financial analyses unrelated to Firebase, plaintiffs haven’t persuaded the Court that those

20

analyses are relevant or that their disclosure would be proportional to the needs of the case.

21

Google must produce the Incognito-mode financial study by September 30, 2022.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated: September 26, 2022

24
25
26
27
28

ALEX G. TSE
United States Magistrate Judge