AdTrader, Inc. v. Google LLC

Filing 363

FURTHER ORDER re 311 , 362 Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Evidence. Signed by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 11/19/2021. (vkdlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2021)

Download PDF
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 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Case No. 17-cv-07082-BLF (VKD) FURTHER ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE v. GOOGLE LLC, Re: Dkt. Nos. 311, 362 Defendant. 13 14 By order dated October 25, 2021, this Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude evidence, 15 but found that Google had committed a discovery violation that warranted alternative remedies or 16 sanctions. Dkt. Nos. 350 (sealed), 354 (redacted). As directed, the parties advise that they have 17 conferred about possible alternative remedies but do not agree. Dkt. No. 362. 18 As the Court observed in its prior order, the appropriate remedy for Google’s discovery 19 violation must afford Plaintiffs an opportunity to explore the facts responsive to SCB’s 20 Interrogatories Nos. 15-17, including how Google derived the information on which it relies in its 21 supplemental responses, as well as an opportunity to modify their damages calculation to account 22 for the supplemental responses, including supplementing their expert’s opinions. In addition, 23 Google must reimburse Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated with these 24 efforts. The Court has considered the parties’ respective proposals, and now orders as follows: 25 1. Fact discovery: Google will promptly produce Michael Spaulding and Felix Chang for 26 deposition regarding the underlying data and processes on which Google relied to 27 arrive at the numbers it included in both its original supplemental responses to SCB’s 28 Interrogatories Nos. 15-17, including the matters described in Messrs. Spaulding and 1 Change’s respective declarations. Dkt. Nos. 316-6, 316-8. Each deposition may not 2 exceed three hours. Alternatively, at Plaintiffs’ election, Google will produce a Rule 3 30(b)(6) designee to testify regarding the same subject matter, and such deposition will 4 not exceed four hours. 5 2. Expert discovery: Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Kneuper, may prepare a supplemental expert 6 report incorporating any new information learned from the additional fact discovery 7 authorized above. The supplemental expert report must be served no later than 21 days 8 after completion of the last deposition unless the parties agree otherwise. 9 3. The parties shall cooperate in seeking a modification of the case schedule to reopen fact and expert discovery for the sole purpose of completing the additional discovery 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 authorized above. 12 4. Google will reimburse the reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Plaintiffs in 13 connection with the additional discovery authorized above, as follows: 14 a. cost of court reporter and videographer for the deposition(s); 15 b. reasonable attorneys’ fees for time spent taking the deposition(s); 16 c. reasonable attorneys’ fees for time spent preparing to take deposition(s) (not to 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 exceed 5 hours); d. expert fees for time spent by Dr. Kneuper in preparing a supplemental expert report (not to exceed 15 hours); and e. reasonable attorneys’ fees for time spent working with Dr. Kneuper to prepare a supplemental expert report (not to exceed 15 hours). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 19, 2021 24 25 VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI United States Magistrate Judge 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?