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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?