AMI - GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND MANAGEMENT COMPANY LTD. v. ALPHABET…
AMI - GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND MANAGEMENT COMPANY LTD., et al. v. ALPHABET INC., et al.
- Lin
- 3:23-cv-01186
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
In AMI v. Alphabet, Judge Lin allowed more discovery and denied defendants’ partial summary-judgment motion without prejudice.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the securities case are affected: the plaintiffs may pursue additional discovery, and the defendants may not renew their partial summary-judgment motion until after expert discovery closes.
What happened
In AMI - Government Employees Provident Fund Management Company Ltd. v. Alphabet Inc., the defendants sought partial summary judgment on whether statements about Google’s advertising technology were false and made with the required knowledge or intent. The plaintiffs asked for more time and discovery before responding.
The court found that the requested source code, documents from Meta, and additional depositions could be relevant to whether the statements were false and whether the defendants had the required knowledge or intent. The court also found that the plaintiffs had been sufficiently diligent, while noting that delays appeared largely attributable to the defendants’ initial refusals to provide enough discovery.
Judge Rita F. Lin granted the plaintiffs’ request for relief under Rule 56(d) and denied the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment without prejudice. The defendants may not renew that motion until expert discovery closes. The parties must also address the deadline for completing fact discovery by October 5, 2026.
The detailed version
- AMI - GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND MANAGEMENT COMPANY LTD. v. ALPHABET… · No. 3:23-cv-01186
- Lin
- Sept. 21, 2026
Background
This securities case concerns Google’s advertising technology. The defendants moved for partial summary judgment on falsity and scienter. Falsity concerns whether the challenged statement was false; scienter concerns the required knowledge or intent. The plaintiffs responded by moving for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), which allows a party to seek additional discovery needed to respond to a summary-judgment motion.
Rule 56(d) Analysis
The plaintiffs sought several categories of evidence, including source code, documents from Meta, new depositions, and transcripts from earlier depositions of Google employees, including Sundar Pichai. The court found that the requested evidence appeared relevant and material to the defendants’ motion. For example, source code could show how Google’s advertising technology works and help determine whether the challenged statement was false. Pichai’s knowledge of the technology and the statement’s release could be relevant to scienter. The court also found that it was not speculative that the requested evidence existed.
The court found that the plaintiffs had been sufficiently diligent in pursuing discovery. Although the plaintiffs might have acted more quickly at the beginning of the case, the court said that the overall delays appeared largely attributable to the defendants’ initial refusals to provide sufficient discovery. The court also said the plaintiffs reasonably used the parties’ meet-and-confer process and reasonably waited to take depositions until document discovery was substantially complete.
Rulings and Case Management
The court granted the plaintiffs’ Rule 56(d) motion. Because the additional discovery could be extensive, the court decided that supplemental briefing was not enough. It therefore denied the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment without prejudice. The order states that the defendants may not renew that motion until after expert discovery closes because the plaintiffs appear likely to need expert reports to respond.
The court also directed the parties to meet and confer by October 5, 2026, about a fact-discovery cutoff. By that date, they must file either a stipulation and proposed order setting the cutoff or a joint letter of no more than five pages explaining their competing proposals and reasoning. Judge Rita F. Lin signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.