Google LLC v. Point Financial, Inc.
- Beth Freeman
- 5:25-cv-04033
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
In Google LLC v. Point Financial, Inc., Judge Freeman denied PFI's motion to add trade secret counterclaims against Google, finding it would unfairly prejudice Google so close to trial.
Companies involved in litigation with Google, or any party who has attempted to add new claims late in a case after discovery has closed and trial is imminent. The ruling illustrates that courts may deny amendment requests — even without a scheduling deadline — when adding claims would require reopening discovery, additional motion practice, and a trial continuance.
What happened
In Google LLC v. Point Financial, Inc. (Case No. 25-cv-04033-BLF), Google sued Point Financial, Inc. (PFI), and PFI responded with counterclaims of its own. PFI has twice tried to add new counterclaims under two federal and state trade secret laws — the Defend Trade Secrets Act and California's Uniform Trade Secrets Act — but had previously been denied leave to do so without a proper showing. On June 11, 2026, PFI tried again with a revised filing.
The court applied a standard that allows amendments to legal filings when fairness requires it, but weighs several factors — including bad faith, delay, prejudice to the other side, whether the amendment would be futile, and prior amendment history. Here, the court focused on prejudice to Google: fact and expert discovery have both closed, the court has already ruled on motions for summary judgment, and trial is scheduled to begin on November 16, 2026 — less than ninety days away. Allowing the amendment would require reopening discovery, additional pretrial briefing, and a delay of the trial date.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied PFI's motion, finding that adding the trade secret claims at this late stage would severely limit Google's ability to properly prepare and respond. The denial is without prejudice, meaning PFI may pursue its trade secret claims in a separate lawsuit — though the court cautioned that this ruling should not be read as encouragement to file such a suit or as any signal about PFI's chances of winning on those claims.
The detailed version
- Google LLC v. Point Financial, Inc. · No. 5:25-cv-04033
- Beth Freeman
- Aug. 24, 2026
Background
Google LLC filed a complaint against Point Financial, Inc. ("PFI") on May 8, 2025. PFI filed an answer and counterclaim on May 30, 2025. On October 6, 2025, PFI moved for leave to amend its counterclaim to add claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act ("DTSA"), 18 U.S.C. § 1831 et seq., a federal statute protecting against theft of trade secrets, and California's Uniform Trade Secrets Act ("CUTSA"), Cal. Civ. Code § 3426 et seq., the state analog. The court previously denied that motion for failure to make a sufficient showing, but expressly placed no time limit on a further request by PFI to seek leave to add trade secret claims.
On June 11, 2026, PFI filed the present motion — its second attempt — again seeking to add DTSA and CUTSA counterclaims via a proposed Second Amended Counterclaim. Google opposed the motion. The court held a hearing on August 20, 2026, ruled from the bench, and issued this written order memorializing that ruling.
Legal Standard
Because the court had placed no scheduling deadline on PFI's amendment, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) ("Rule 15") governs the motion. Rule 15 instructs courts to grant leave to amend "freely . . . when justice so requires," but leave is not automatic. Courts in the Ninth Circuit weigh five factors: (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of the proposed amendment, and (5) whether the moving party has previously amended its pleading. Among these, prejudice to the opposing party carries the greatest weight.
Analysis and Holding
The court focused its analysis on prejudice to Google. By the time of the motion, fact and expert discovery were both complete, and the court had already ruled on the parties' motions for summary judgment. Allowing PFI to add DTSA and CUTSA claims at this stage would require the court to: (1) reopen discovery, (2) permit additional briefing on dispositive motions relating to the new claims, and (3) continue the trial date — then set for November 16, 2026, less than ninety days away. The court found these consequences would severely limit Google's ability to prepare for and address PFI's trade secret claims, constituting unfair prejudice. The court cited Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Sols., Inc., 194 F.3d 980, 986 (9th Cir. 1999), for the proposition that a need to reopen discovery and delay proceedings supports a finding of prejudice from a late motion to amend.
Disposition
PFI's motion for leave to amend its first amended counterclaim is denied without prejudice to PFI raising its trade secret claims in a separate lawsuit. The court expressly noted that this order should not be read as an invitation for PFI to file a separate trade secret suit, nor as any indication of the likely success of PFI's trade secret claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.