Morilha v. Alphabet Inc.

Background

Daniel Vitor Morilha sued Alphabet Inc. and Google LLC over Google’s alleged collection and use of his data. His complaint asserted seven claims: one under the Wiretap Act; two under the unauthorized-access provision of the Stored Communications Act; one under the Stored Communications Act’s disclosure provision; breach of contract; negligence; fraudulent misrepresentation; and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Morilha also moved for limited discovery from two non-party individuals and sought permission to amend his complaint to add the City of Sunnyvale, California, and the State of Pennsylvania as defendants.

Standing and Motion to Dismiss

The court treated standing as a jurisdictional requirement. To establish standing, Morilha had to allege an injury in fact, a connection between that injury and Defendants’ conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable court decision would remedy the injury.

Morilha primarily relied on harm he said resulted from his September 5, 2015, detention relating to domestic-violence allegations. The court found that he did not adequately explain how Google caused the detention or its consequences. The court also found that Morilha did not specifically allege that Google took a harmful action. Instead, his allegations stated that his calls “might have been intercepted,” that “someone” may have exceeded authorization, and that information may have been disclosed. Morilha acknowledged that he could only speculate about how information was disclosed.

The court concluded that Morilha still had not alleged a concrete injury caused by Defendants. It therefore dismissed his claims on standing grounds and granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss without leave to amend.

Requests for Judicial Notice

Morilha asked the court to take judicial notice of documents concerning prior dissolution proceedings and his marriage. The court denied the requests because the documents were not relevant to the claims against Defendants.

Motion for Limited Discovery

Morilha sought expedited discovery consisting of more than 100 proposed questions for each of two non-party individuals. He argued that the answers would support his theory that his former wife had planned his detention and that information about his financial life may have been disclosed by Google.

The court held that Morilha had not shown the required good cause for expedited discovery. It also explained that interrogatories are used to obtain information from parties, not non-parties. The court separately rejected Morilha’s alternative request to preserve testimony under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27(b), because no appeal had yet been taken and he had not shown that losing the evidence could cause a failure of justice. The court denied the motion for limited discovery.

Motion for Leave to Amend

Morilha sought to add the City of Sunnyvale and the State of Pennsylvania as defendants. The court denied leave to amend because the proposed amendments did not satisfy the requirements for joining parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20. The court found that the existing complaints did not hint at the allegations against the proposed defendants and that Morilha did not explain how the proposed claims arose from the same transaction or occurrence, or how they presented a common question of law or fact with the existing claims.

Disposition

Defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted without leave to amend. Morilha’s motion for limited discovery and motion for leave to amend the complaint were denied. The clerk was directed to enter judgment on behalf of Defendants and close the case.