Woods v. Google, Inc.

Filing 661

Order Re 596 Google's Motions to Strike Reports of Saul Solomon. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 9/26/2022. (ejdlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2022)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
RENE CABRERA, ET AL.,

7

Plaintiffs,

8
v.

9

ORDER RE GOOGLE’S MOTIONS TO
STRIKE REPORTS OF SAUL
SOLOMON

GOOGLE LLC,

10

Defendant.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 5:11-cv-01263-EJD

Re: Dkt. Nos. 442, 596

Defendant Google LLC (“Google”) has filed two separate motions to strike the expert reports

12
13

of Saul Solomon pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow

14

Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993). ECF 442, 596.1 Plaintiffs oppose the motions (ECF 455,

15

609). For the reasons stated below, the Court grants Google’s motions in part.

16

I.

Because the parties are intimately familiar with the history of this case, this Order sets

17
18

BACKGROUND

forth only what is necessary to resolve the issues presented in Google’s motion.
Saul Solomon (“Solomon”) is Plaintiffs’ damages expert. He issued reports on July 10,

19
20

2015 (ECF 441-10), January 18, 2018 (ECF 424-80), May 15, 2018 (ECF 320-14), and November

21

8, 2018 (the “Cabrera Data Report”) (ECF 424-86). Google’s Mot. at 4. In the July 10, 2015

22

report, Solomon states his opinion that restitution and contract damages resulting from Google’s

23

alleged misconduct relating to Smart Pricing and Location Targeting are measurable and can be

24

reasonably and reliably determined. ECF 441-10 at 3. Further, he states that damages and

25
26
27
28

Google’s motion filed as ECF 442 challenges both Solomon’s opinions and the opinions of
another one Plaintiffs’ experts, Dr. James L. Gibson (“Gibson”). The Court will address the
portion of Google’s motion challenging Gibson’s opinions in a separate order.
Case No.: 5:11-cv-01263-EJD
ORDER RE GOOGLE’S MOTIONS TO STRIKE REPORTS OF SAUL SOLOMON
1
1

1

restitution can be computed for all putative Class Members by applying a uniform methodology

2

that relies solely on Google’s data and requires no individual inquiry of any putative Class

3

Member. Id. Solomon opines that restitution for the Location Targeting claim can be measured in

4

two ways. First, Solomon says he can apply the “partial refund model” by summing the amount

5

paid by Class Members for all Out-of-Area Clicks. Id. Second, Solomon says he can estimate

6

restitution based upon the “net profits model” by applying an estimate of the applicable

7

incremental profit margin actually realized by Google on advertising revenue to the amount paid

8

by Class Members for all Out-of-Area Clicks. Id. Solomon also explains his methodology for

9

computing restitution for the Smart Pricing claim. Id. at 3-4.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

In his January 18, 2018 report, Solomon opines in pertinent part that the revised class

11

definitions do not impact his earlier opinions. ECF 424-80. He also proposes a third method to

12

calculate restitution for the Location Targeting claim, the Smart Pricing-based restitution model

13

(“SPR Model”), which measures the difference between (i) the amount Class Members actually

14

paid for Out-of-Area Clicks and the amount Google’s Smart Pricing algorithms estimate that a

15

rational advertiser might have been willing to pay for the mistargeted clicks had the advertiser

16

been forced to pay for those Out-of-Area Clicks. Id. at 4, 9-10. The SPR Model “assumes that

17

advertisers should have to pay for the mistargeted clicks accrued due to Google’s improper

18

conduct and despite their express ‘0’ bid, and reprices the ads that were placed outside the areas

19

selected by advertisers using Google’s Smart Priced data.” Id. at 5. Solomon states that by using

20

Google’s data, as compiled by Dr. Gibson, he can reasonably and reliably measure the amount of

21

restitution under the SPR Model for all putative Class Members resulting from any Out-of-Area

22

Clicks. Id. at 8.

23

In his May 15, 2018 report, Solomon asserts that the analyses and key assumptions

24

underlying the opinions of Google’s expert, Dr. Lawrence Wu, are flawed and speculative. ECF

25

320-14 at 3-5. Solomon also takes issue with the analysis and conclusion of Google’s expert, Dr.

26

Paul Milgrom. Id. at 5.

27
28

In the Cabrera Data Report, Solomon measures the damages and restitution for Plaintiff
Case No.: 5:11-cv-01263-EJD
ORDER RE GOOGLE’S MOTIONS TO STRIKE REPORTS OF SAUL SOLOMON
2

1

Rene Cabrera (“Cabrera”) resulting from Google’s alleged misconduct using the Class Period

2

click data Google produced (the “Cabrera Clicks”). ECF 424-86. Pertinent to the Location

3

Targeting claim, Solomon applies the partial refund model and concludes that Cabrera’s restitution

4

for Out-of-Area Clicks during the Class Period totals $88.73. Id. at 4. Applying the net profits

5

model leads to a total of $62.66 in restitution for Cabrera. Id. Applying the SPR Model, Solomon

6

concludes that Cabrera’s restitution totals $8.69. Id. Solomon also provides a $8.90 damages

7

calculation for Cabrera’s Smart Pricing claim. Id. at 5.
After Solomon issued the Cabrera Data Report, Plaintiffs filed the Fifth Amended

United States District Court
Northern District of California

8
9

Complaint naming RM Cabrera Company, Inc. (“RMC”) f/k/a Training Options, Inc. as an

10

additional plaintiff. In his November 18, 2021 Supplemental Report (ECF 579-3), Solomon

11

expresses his understanding, based on Cabrera’s deposition testimony, that all the Cabrera Clicks

12

were purchased by RMC for RMC’s business.” ECF 579-3 ¶ 3. He then expresses his opinion

13

that the “measurement of damages and restitution” presented in his earlier reports regarding

14

Cabrera is equally applicable to RMC. Id.

15

II.

16

STANDARDS
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 permits opinion testimony by an expert if the proponent

17

demonstrates that the expert is qualified and (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other

18

specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact

19

in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of

20

reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods

21

to the facts of the case. Fed. R. Evid. 702. An expert witness may be qualified by “knowledge,

22

skill, experience, training, or education.” Id. The proponent of expert testimony has the burden of

23

proving admissibility in accordance with Rule 702. Fed. R. Evid. 702 advisory committee’s note

24

to 2000 amendment.

25

Rule 702 “clearly contemplates some degree of regulation of the subjects and theories

26

about which an expert may testify.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589–90. Under Daubert, the Court

27

exercises a gatekeeping function to ensure an expert’s proffered testimony is relevant and reliable.

28

Case No.: 5:11-cv-01263-EJD
ORDER RE GOOGLE’S MOTIONS TO STRIKE REPORTS OF SAUL SOLOMON
3

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

United States v. Valencia-Lopez, 971 F.3d 891, 897–98 (9th Cir. 2020). Rule 702 and Daubert,

2

however, are not “guarantees of correctness.” i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831,

3

855 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “[T]he case law—particularly Ninth Circuit case law—emphasizes that a

4

trial judge should not exclude an expert opinion merely because he thinks it’s shaky, or because he

5

thinks the jury will have cause to question the expert’s credibility. So long as an opinion is

6

premised on reliable scientific principles, it should not be excluded by the trial judge.” In re

7

Roundup Prods. Liab. Litig., 390 F. Supp. 3d 1102, 1109 (N.D. Cal. 2018).

8

III.

DISCUSSION

9

Google challenges Solomon’s damages calculations for both the Smart Pricing claim and

10

the Location Targeting claim. Google argues that Solomon’s opinions are neither admissible nor

11

probative expert testimony for several reasons. First, Google argues that Solomon’s opinions

12

regarding Smart Pricing damages rest on a fundamental misconception of how Smart Pricing

13

works. Second, Google contends that Solomon’s opinions regarding Location Targeting damages

14

are based on the false premise that no advertiser has ever benefited from Out-of-Area Clicks.

15

Third, Google contends that Solomon’s opinions regarding class damages are invalid because they

16

are based on a single potential class member, Cabrera, which Google contends is insufficient as a

17

matter of law to show that damages may be proved with common class-wide evidence.
Solomon’s Opinions re Smart-Pricing Claim

18

A.

19

Google’s challenges to Solomon’s opinions regarding Smart Pricing damages depend in

20

large part on the strength of the legal arguments in its motion for summary judgment and in

21

opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Therefore, the Court will defer ruling on

22

Google’s challenges to Solomon’s opinions regarding Smart Pricing damages until the Court

23

addresses the parties’ respective motions.
Solomon’s Opinions re Location Targeting Claim

24

B.

25

In calculating restitution under the UCL, California law “requires only that some

26

reasonable basis of computation of damages be used, and the damages may be computed even if

27

the result reached is an approximation.” Pulaski & Middleman, LLC v. Google, Inc., 802 F.3d

28

Case No.: 5:11-cv-01263-EJD
ORDER RE GOOGLE’S MOTIONS TO STRIKE REPORTS OF SAUL SOLOMON
4

1

979, 989 (9th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 2410 (2016) (“Pulaski”) (quoting Marsu, B.V. v.

2

Walt Disney Co., 185 F.3d 932, 938-39 (9th Cir. 1999)). Solomon’s computations satisfy this

3

standard.

4

Contrary to Google’s assertion, Solomon’s opinions regarding damages for the Location

5

Targeting claim are based on more than just “intuition” and “logic.” Solomon explains in his May

6

15, 2018 declaration:

7

The basis for my conclusion that Out-of-Area Clicks have zero
value to advertisers is not my “intuition” and “logic” as Dr. Wu
erroneously asserts, but rather the value is evidenced by advertisers’
explicit selection to exclude these clicks from [their] ads indicating
they chose to pay nothing for them and Google’s policy of providing
a full refund of the click cost for Out-of-Area Clicks to advertisers
(regardless of whether the click resulted in a conversion).

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

ECF 320-14 at 4. Solomon explains further in his January 14, 2018 declaration:

12

When given the option to specify the geographic location(s) in
which they want their ads to appear for Location Targeting,
advertisers will effectively exclude the locations they do not select.
It is through this selection of geographic location(s) in which they
want their ads to appear that the advertisers express to Google that
they have chosen to spend $0 advertising monies on any Out-ofArea Clicks. Thus, the value of $0 is evidenced and assigned to Outof-Area Clicks first and foremost by the advertisers themselves. I
have relied upon the advertisers’ geographic location selections to
indicate the value determined for Out-of-Area Clicks by the
advertisers themselves. The logic involved here is merely the
assertion that, by deciding to pay zero for Out-of-Area Clicks, the
advertisers have determined that the benefit they expected to receive
for these clicks does not exceed the cost, resulting in a value of zero.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

June 14, 2018 Decl. of Saul Solomon in Response to Google’s Mot. to Strike Solomon Expert

21

Reports, ECF 454-10, ¶ 14. That Google gave a refund to one advertiser who complained about

22

Out-of-Area clicks (ECF 454-10 at 9-10) also tends to support Solomon’s opinions, even if only

23

slightly.

24

Further, contrary to Google’s assertion, Solomon never “admits” that “it’s probably not

25

true that advertisers value out-of-area clicks at zero.” Mot. at 21. Instead, Solomon testifies

26

during his deposition that: “If you’re asking me is it conceivable that an out-of-area click could

27

have provided some value to an advertiser, I would say it’s possible after the fact. 3/14/2018

28

Case No.: 5:11-cv-01263-EJD
ORDER RE GOOGLE’S MOTIONS TO STRIKE REPORTS OF SAUL SOLOMON
5

1

Solomon Dep., ECF 441-4, at 48:22-25. This concession does not render Solomon’s opinions so

2

unreliable that they are subject to exclusion. Google’s remedy is to cross-examine Solomon and

3

put forth its own rebuttal evidence. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596 (“Vigorous cross-examination,

4

presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional

5

and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.”).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

1.

Sample Size

7

Google contends that Solomon’s opinions are unreliable for purposes of calculating

8

damages to Class Members because they are based on an analysis of account information from just

9

Cabrera and former Plaintiff Rick Woods. This is inaccurate. Solomon relies on, but does not

10

discuss in significant detail, the opinions offered by Dr. Gibson, who analyzed Google’s Data

11

Sample. ECF 320-14, Ex. A.
Google also complains that Solomon has not actually performed a full calculation of class-

12
13

wide damages, but that is not required at this time. Spann v. J.C. Penney Corp., 307 F.R.D. 508,

14

529 (C.D. Cal. 2015), modified, 314 F.R.D. 312 (C.D. Cal. 2016) (at the certification stage, it is

15

not necessary to show that the expert’s method for determining class damages will work with

16

certainty). It is sufficient that Solomon has set forth likely methods for calculating class damages

17

for the Location Targeting claim. Id.

18

IV.

CONCLUSION

19

For the reasons stated above, Google’s motions are DENIED to the extent they challenge

20

Solomon’s opinions regarding Location Targeting damages. Google’s motions are DEFERRED

21

to the extent its motions challenge Solomon’s opinions regarding Smart Pricing damages.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 26, 2022

24
25
26

EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

27
28

Case No.: 5:11-cv-01263-EJD
ORDER RE GOOGLE’S MOTIONS TO STRIKE REPORTS OF SAUL SOLOMON
6