Google LLC v. Point Financial, Inc.

Background

Google filed this action on May 8, 2025, along with requests for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. After a May 19 hearing, the court orally issued a temporary restraining order and set a preliminary-injunction hearing for July 10, 2025, with briefing due June 26, 2025. The parties then engaged in expedited discovery, including written discovery and depositions.

Google filed an emergency motion asking for a 30-day extension of the discovery and preliminary-injunction briefing deadlines, a later preliminary-injunction hearing, and an extension of the temporary restraining order. Google said it needed more time to identify, collect, review, and produce documents responsive to Point Financial’s requests; review and analyze a recently produced hard drive; and take depositions relevant to the preliminary-injunction proceedings.

Point Financial’s Response

Point Financial agreed to moving the hearing concerning the part of the temporary restraining order that barred it from taking possession of certain products allegedly containing Google trade secrets or disclosing, selling, or licensing those products. It opposed delaying the part of the order that barred it from contacting vendors or interfering with Google’s licenses and access rights to certain intellectual property. Point Financial argued that this issue required minimal additional discovery and that Google should not receive a delay caused by its alleged refusal to cooperate.

Point Financial also included requests to require Google to comply with an earlier order requiring security, set specific expedited-discovery deadlines, and respond to discovery. The court treated these requests as improper because affirmative relief must be sought through an appropriate motion.

Court’s Analysis

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6, a court may extend a deadline for good cause when the request is made before the deadline expires. The court explained that this decision is discretionary and that a court is not required to grant an extension merely because a party asks for one.

The court found that Google had not shown good cause. Although Google had sought a rapid resolution at the temporary-restraining-order hearing, the court found that Google appeared to have delayed the expedited discovery process. The court cited evidence that, as of June 4, Google’s counsel had not assessed relevant witnesses’ availability for depositions, that Google did not provide written discovery responses until June 4 despite agreeing to a May 30 deadline, and that Google had produced no documents as of June 9. The court agreed that Google could not benefit from discovery delays of its own making.

The court also struck pages 9 through 15 of Point Financial’s opposition because the brief exceeded the applicable page limit, while considering the first five pages of argument. It declined to divide the order-to-show-cause hearing because the court had issued one temporary restraining order and would consider a preliminary injunction concerning some or all of the restrained conduct at one hearing. Discovery disputes were referred to Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. The court stated that it would consider a properly filed request to dissolve the temporary restraining order if the required security was not posted immediately.

Disposition

The court denied Google LLC’s emergency motion to enlarge discovery and preliminary-injunction briefing deadlines, continue the preliminary-injunction hearing date, and extend the temporary restraining order. The court did not rule on Point Financial’s purported cross-motion included in its opposition brief.