Woods v. Google, Inc.

Filing 758

ORDER re 738 March 7, 2024 Discovery Dispute re Dr. Sutherland's Access to Confidential Information; 737 , 748 Sealing Information. Signed by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 4/3/2024. (vkdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/3/2024)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

RENE CABRERA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No. 11-cv-01263-EJD (VKD)

v.
GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant.

ORDER RE MARCH 7, 2024
DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE
DR. SUTHERLAND’S ACCESS TO
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION;
SEALING INFORMATION
Re: Dkt. Nos. 737, 738, 748

13
14
15

The parties ask the Court to resolve their dispute concerning whether plaintiffs’

16

expert/consultant, Dr. Joseph Sutherland, may continue to have access to materials designated

17

confidential by defendant Google LLC (“Google”) under the protective order. Dkt. No. 738. The

18

Court heard oral argument on this matter on March 12, 2024. Dkt. No. 744.

19

According to plaintiffs, Dr. Sutherland provided technical support to plaintiffs’ testifying

20

expert, Dr. James Gibson, in 2017 and 2018. Specifically, Dr. Sutherland “loaded [Google’s

21

2017] data sample onto his computer and ran queries designed by [Dr.] Gibson,” and “reviewed

22

Google’s source code, . . . [a named plaintiff’s] change history[,] and log files.” Dkt. No. 738 at 2.

23

In performing this work, Dr. Sutherland accessed materials designated confidential by Google

24

under the protective order. Id. at 5.

25

In 2023, Dr. Sutherland was employed for ten months as a senior manager in Amazon’s

26

advertising division, where he worked on “AdTech business ventures.” Id. at 2, 5. While he was

27

employed by Amazon, he retained notes of the work he had done on this matter in 2017 and 2018

28

and a copy of a draft motion to exclude an expert. Dkt. No. 750 at 39:3-40:23. Plaintiffs did not

1

disclose Dr. Sutherland’s work for Amazon to Google, and apparently plaintiffs’ counsel were not

2

aware that Dr. Sutherland had engaged in such work until Google’s counsel brought it to their

3

attention. Id. at 47:13-17.
Dr. Sutherland consulted both his notes and the draft motion in November 2023. Id. at

4
5

40:2-23. More recently, Dr. Sutherland assisted Dr. Gibson in preparing proposed computer code

6

for identifying search-bundled clicks data on a class-wide basis. Id. at 44:25-45:3; see also Dkt.

7

No. 740-1. In so doing, Dr. Sutherland had access to Google’s data field names. Dkt. No. 750 at

8

42:6-7.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

Google objects that by virtue of his past work for Amazon, Dr. Sutherland should not have

10

access to Google’s confidential information under the protective order. Dkt. No. 738 at 5-7.

11

Google notes that the protective order does not permit plaintiffs to share Google’s confidential

12

information with an expert or consultant who is “a past or current employee of a Party or of a Party’s

13

competitor.” See Dkt. No. 103 § 2.7. There is no serious dispute that Amazon is a Google competitor,

14

particularly with respect to advertising or “AdTech.” See Dkt. No. 750 at 43:5-44:14.

15

Plaintiffs argue that Google has not been harmed as a result of Dr. Sutherland’s past work for

16

Amazon, and that there is no genuine risk of harm to Google if Dr. Sutherland is permitted to continue to

17

work on this matter. Dkt. No. 738 at 3-4. Plaintiffs say that the material in question is either public or

18

“stale” and not really deserving of protection, and that Google merely speculates about possible disclosure

19

of its information to Amazon. Id. The difficulty with plaintiffs’ argument is that the parties negotiated and

20

stipulated to a proposed protective order with specific terms regarding permitted experts and designations

21

of protected material. The Court accepted their proposal and entered the order, and absent good cause, the

22

Court will enforce these terms. Because Dr. Sutherland worked for a Google competitor, the protective

23

order clearly prohibits him from having access to Google’s confidential information, without Google’s

24

permission. The record presented does not permit the Court to assess whether certain materials have been

25

improperly designated by Google under the protective order, but plaintiffs may, if they wish, challenge any

26

such designations. See Dkt. No. 103 § 6.

27
28

Invoking section 7.4(c) of the protective order, plaintiffs argue that notwithstanding section 2.7, it
is reasonably necessary for Dr. Sutherland to have access to Google’s confidential information. Dkt. No.

2

1

738 at 4. Plaintiffs’ showing on this point is not persuasive. Dr. Sutherland does not serve as a testifying

2

expert in this case; rather, plaintiffs anticipate only that he will assist Dr. Gibson by writing computer code

3

and running data queries. Id.; Dkt. No. 750 at 44:15-46:22. Plaintiffs concede that they could identify

4

another expert/consultant who can perform this work. Id. In these circumstances, the Court concludes that

5

it is not reasonably necessary for Dr. Sutherland to have access to Google’s confidential information.

6
7

designated under the protective order. At plaintiffs’ request, Google shall promptly identify its principal

8

competitors for purposes of section 2.7 of the protective order to facilitated plaintiffs’ ability to locate and

9

retain a replacement expert/consultant for Dr. Sutherland.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Accordingly, the Court orders that Dr. Sutherland may not have access to material Google has

Google also asks the Court to seal portions of the parties’ joint discovery letter brief raising this

11

dispute. See Dkt. Nos. 737, 748. Plaintiffs have not objected to this request. The Court finds that good

12

cause exists to seal the portions of the joint discovery letter brief identified in Google’s sealing

13

request (Dkt. No. 737-4). See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th

14

Cir. 2006). These materials shall remain sealed.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 3, 2024

17
18
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3