Kinderstart.Com, LLC v. Google, Inc.

Filing 83

Kinderstart.Com, LLC v. Google, Inc.

Doc. 83

Case 5:06-cv-02057-JF

Document 83

Filed 01/22/2007

Page 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NOT FOR CITATION 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1

**E-Filed 1/22/2007**

KINDERSTART.COM, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE INC., Defendant.

Case Number C 06-2057 JF (RS) ORDER1 RE MOTION FOR SANCTIONS [re: docket no. 60]

Defendant Google Inc. ("Google") moves for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 against KinderStart.Com, LLC ("KinderStart") and its counsel Gregory J. Yu ("Yu"). Google asserts that three types of allegations in KinderStart's operative Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") are sanctionable: (i) allegations that Google skews its search results and reserves top placement for entities that compensate Google; (ii) allegations that Google represents that it will always display a notice when it removes a listing from its search results, but does not do so; and (iii) allegations that Google removes certain websites from its search engine results and lowers PageRanks for political and religious reasons. Google Motion 1-2.

This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. C 06-2057 JF (RS) O R D E R RE GOOGLE MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (JFLC1)

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 5:06-cv-02057-JF

Document 83

Filed 01/22/2007

Page 2 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. 3.

KinderStart provides Yu's declaration in opposition to the motion. Yu describes his investigation preceding the filing of the SAC. Specifically, Yu declares that [t]he allegations in the SAC that a top search listing was guaranteed by Google in exchange for consideration are indeed supported by investigation by me prior to the filing of the SAC on September 1, 2006. I twice personally interviewed a witness who received such an admission from the CEO of a Website that received a top listing from Google for delivering consideration to Google. Yu Declaration in Opposition to Google Motion ¶ 5. Yu also declares: I affirm that I personally conducted investigation underlying the allegations related to discrimination of search results and Website blockage on political and religious grounds in SAC ¶¶ 99, 166, 167 and 257. As to political grounds, I consulted two different Websites that took controversial political stands and faced punishment as a result by Google. As to religious grounds, I personal [sic] investigated how a certain religious sect faced a loss of traffic and referrals from Google. Overall, in repeated instances in my investigation behind the allegations set forth in the SAC, potential class members and witnesses expressed fear of retaliation for exposing their identity and that of their Websites to Defendant Google. Given that there is a stay on discovery and any subpoenas by KinderStart, specific details are limited as to what search results based on key words are being sold for consideration, what and when censorship is to be disclosed by Google, and how and why certain sites carrying various political and religious content are inequitably being punished and isolated from search or view by users. Id. ¶¶ 3-4. For the reasons stated on the record during oral argument on January 19, 2007, the Court seeks greater detail regarding the allegations pertaining to the sale of search result position and the removal of certain websites from search results and the lowering of PageRanks for religious or political reasons. In particular, the Court seeks the following information from Yu: 1. The identity of the parties who allege that Google has removed certain websites from its search results and lowered PageRanks for religious or political reasons, or that Google has received compensation for improved positions in search results; The time, place, and manner of Yu's interviews with these parties; The specific content of the allegations that these parties make against Google, including the date and manner in which the alleged conduct occurred, and the parties' bases for believing their accusations to be true. Yu is directed to provide this information in the form of declarations from the individuals that he interviewed. The declarations shall be submitted to the Court in camera within fifteen days of 2
Case No. C 06-2057 JF (RS) O R D E R RE GOOGLE MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (JFLC1)

Case 5:06-cv-02057-JF

Document 83

Filed 01/22/2007

Page 3 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the issuance of this order. After the Court has received and reviewed the materials, it will determine whether to impose Rule 11 sanctions and will issue an appropriate order. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 22, 2007.

JEREMY FOGEL Unit ed States District Judge

3
Case No. C 06-2057 JF (RS) O R D E R RE GOOGLE MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (JFLC1)

Case 5:06-cv-02057-JF

Document 83

Filed 01/22/2007

Page 4 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

This Order has been served upon the following persons: Colleen Bal David H. Kramer Bart Edward Volkmer , Esq Gregory John Yu [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail]

4
Case No. C 06-2057 JF (RS) O R D E R RE GOOGLE MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (JFLC1)