AdTrader, Inc. v. Google LLC

Filing 161

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi re 157 Discovery Dispute re Plaintiffs' Interrogatories. (vkdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/4/2019)

Case 5:17-cv-07082-BLF Document 161 Filed 06/04/19 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

ADTRADER, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

9
v.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No.17-cv-07082-BLF (VKD)

GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant.

12

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE
PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES
NOS. 18-20
Re: Dkt. No. 157

13
14

On May 23, 2019, plaintiffs (collectively, “AdTrader”) and defendant Google LLC

15

(“Google”) submitted a joint discovery dispute letter concerning AdTrader’s Interrogatories Nos.

16

18-20. Dkt. No. 157. AdTrader seeks further information based on certain spreadsheets Google

17

produced earlier this year. The Court heard oral argument on June 4, 2019. Dkt. No. Nos. 159,

18

160. For the reasons stated on the record and as further explained below, the Court orders as

19

follows:

20

Interrogatory No. 18 asks Google to identify, for every publisher debit listed in the

21

spreadsheets, all advertisers to whom Google issued credits, the amount of the credits, the date of

22

the credits, the name of the advertiser, and the geographic location of the advertiser. Google says

23

that it believes it has devised a methodology for obtaining information linking previously

24

produced publisher debit and advertiser credit data, and it expects to produce that information to

25

AdTrader by June 7, 2019. It shall do so. With respect to AdTrader’s request for advertiser

26

names, Google says that the spreadsheets identify the advertisers by a unique ID number, which

27

reflects how such advertisers are identified in Google’s own records in the ordinary course of its

28

business. Google explains that it would be unduly burdensome to match each ID number with a

Case 5:17-cv-07082-BLF Document 161 Filed 06/04/19 Page 2 of 3

1

customer name, particularly for customer information dating back several years. At this time, the

2

Court will not require Google to produce a list of the names corresponding to the ID numbers for

3

the advertisers included in its spreadsheets, given the limited relevance of the information and the

4

substantial burden involved in producing it. With respect to AdTrader’s request for information

5

indicating whether or not advertisers are within the United States, the parties shall confer promptly

6

about possible sources of information about the approximate percentage of advertisers for the

7

relevant products or platforms that are in the United States and those that are not. To the extent

8

there are any remaining disputes about whether obtaining such information is feasible, the parties

9

may submit a further joint discovery dispute letter to the Court and request a hearing.

10

Interrogatory No. 19 asks Google to provide the quarterly revenue Google paid to each

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

publisher in Google’s spreadsheets for the period(s) covered by those spreadsheets. AdTrader’s

12

justification for this discovery is essentially the same as the justification it gave in connection with

13

a prior dispute before the Court. Dkt. No. 97 at 3-4. For the reasons explained in the Court’s

14

order on that prior dispute, AdTrader’s modified request for this same discovery is denied. See

15

Dkt. No. 104 at 6-7. AdTrader has not demonstrated that the requested information relates to the

16

alleged discrepancy between payments Google withheld from publishers for invalid activity and

17

the credits Google issued to advertisers.

18

Interrogatory No. 20 asks Google to identify, for every publisher in Google’s spreadsheets,

19

all advertisers who were charged for displaying ads on those publishers’ websites within 90 days

20

prior to each publisher’s termination date, and to state the amount and date of each charge.

21

AdTrader’s request for this discovery is denied. Google argues persuasively that, based on

22

AdTrader’s class definition, the only credits at issue are those that correspond to an amount

23

actually withheld from a publisher and do not encompass credits associated with invalid activity

24

for which no amounts were withheld from a publisher. The Court is not convinced that the

25
26
27
28
2

Case 5:17-cv-07082-BLF Document 161 Filed 06/04/19 Page 3 of 3

1
2
3

discovery AdTrader seeks is relevant or proportional to the needs of the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 4, 2019

4
5
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3