Rodriguez et al v. Google LLC et al

Filing 303

Order by Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse resolving 261 Discovery Letter Brief. (agtlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/19/2023)

Download PDF
Case 3:20-cv-04688-RS Document 303 Filed 01/19/23 Page 1 of 2 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. 261 GOOGLE LLC, Defendant. 12 1. Segeritz and Vakharia searches. Google must conduct targeted searches of Micha 13 Segeritz’s and Suneeti Vakharia’s custodial files using plaintiffs’ proposed search string ((WAA* 14 OR “(s)WAA*” OR sWAA*) AND (revenue* OR profit*)). Google must then provide plaintiffs 15 with hit counts for those searches and produce responsive documents. 16 These additional searches are warranted because Greg Fair, a former Google product man- 17 ager who had a key role in developing Google’s WAA feature, testified that Segeritz and Vakharia 18 studied WAA’s revenue impact for Google. See Dkt. 261 at 2. That revenue impact is relevant to 19 plaintiffs’ demand for unjust enrichment because plaintiffs maintain that Google unlawfully mone- 20 tized mobile app data from users who had WAA turned off. 21 In opposing plaintiffs’ targeted searches, Google insists that Segeritz and Vakhaira did not 22 conduct a WAA revenue study. In declarations accompanying the parties’ joint statement, Segeritz 23 and Vakharia say the same. See Dkts. 261-4, -5. Plaintiffs, however, want to confirm for themselves. 24 Their desire to do so is reasonable given Fair’s testimony that Segeritz and Vakharia did conduct a 25 WAA revenue study. 26 Google also notes that plaintiffs haven’t suggested that the revenue study, assuming it exists, 27 relates specifically to Firebase. A fair point. But unlike earlier requests made by plaintiffs (e.g., to 28 produce “all WAA-off financial analyses,” dkt. 247 at 4 (emphasis in original)), the current request United States District Court Northern District of California Case 3:20-cv-04688-RS Document 303 Filed 01/19/23 Page 2 of 2 1 is narrowly tailored. Also, it’s conceivable that plaintiffs could use the revenue study they seek in 2 conjunction with other documents or testimony to estimate the relevant revenue impact from WAA. 3 That is, to estimate the revenue Google generated from monetizing mobile app data that Google 4 obtained through Firebase from users who had turned WAA off. Google’s objections are overruled. 5 2. Ochotta search. Google must also search Emil Ochotta’s custodial documents using plain- 6 tiffs’ proposed search string ((WAA* OR “(s)WAA*” OR sWAA*) AND Firebase). Ochotta, a 7 Google software engineer, authored a document that discussed WAA in connection with Firebase. 8 That document, which Google produced, is relevant, and plaintiffs reasonably seek to conduct a 9 targeted search of Ochotta’s custodial documents to determine if Ochotta has any similar or related 10 relevant documents. Google argues that plaintiffs’ request is untimely, but plaintiffs made their re- 11 quest before the fact-discovery cutoff and brought the parties’ dispute to the Court within seven 12 days following the cutoff, as required. Their request isn’t untimely. *** 13 14 Google must run the above-ordered searches and produce any responsive documents by 15 February 3, 2023. Depending on the substance of the documents produced, plaintiffs say they may 16 want to depose the document custodians. After Google’s production, the parties shall meet and 17 confer to discuss whether one or more brief additional depositions are warranted. If the parties can’t 18 agree, despite good faith efforts to compromise, they can return to the Court for further guidance. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 19, 2023 21 22 ALEX G. TSE United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?