In re Google Digital Advertising Antitrust Litigation

Background

Plaintiffs Hanson Law Firm, PC, Surefreight Global LLC doing business as Prana Pets, and Vitor Lindo brought this putative class action against Google LLC. A putative class action is a case in which the plaintiffs seek to represent a larger group, although the court has not yet stated that a class is certified.

The amended complaint alleges that Google leveraged a monopoly in online search and search advertising to acquire an illegal monopoly in brokering display advertising, meaning the placement of advertisements on other companies' websites. The amended complaint asserts two causes of action: a claim under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2, for acquiring and maintaining a monopoly, and a claim under California's Unfair Competition Law.

Motion and parties' positions

Google moved to stay discovery while its motion to dismiss was pending. A motion to dismiss asks whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim; the opinion refers to a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which concerns failure to state a claim. Google argued that its motion could dispose of the entire case because the plaintiffs allegedly failed to plead monopoly power in the relevant market, willful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly power, and causal antitrust injury. Google also argued that the motion could be decided solely from the complaint and that continuing discovery would waste resources.

The plaintiffs argued that their requested discovery was narrowly tailored and would advance the litigation. They opposed a blanket discovery stay and argued that producing the requested documents from Google's production to the Texas Attorney General would impose minimal burden. The requested production involved approximately 100,000 pages concerning Google's business practices in relevant digital advertising markets.

Court's analysis

The court explained that the Federal Rules do not automatically stay discovery whenever a potentially dispositive motion is pending. However, a court may stay discovery for good cause under Rule 26(c)(1)(A). The court applied a two-part test: first, whether the pending motion could dispose of the case or claims to which discovery is directed; and second, whether the motion could be decided without additional discovery. The court also took a preliminary look at the motion to dismiss to determine whether a stay was warranted.

The court found the first requirement satisfied because Google's motion to dismiss presented formidable arguments that could be difficult for the plaintiffs to overcome and could potentially dispose of the case. The court found the second requirement satisfied because the motion was based solely on the complaint's allegations and did not raise factual issues requiring discovery.

The court also rejected the plaintiffs' remaining objections. It found that the requested discovery would be unduly burdensome given its size and nature. The court noted that discovery in antitrust cases can be broad, time-consuming, and expensive, making a stay particularly appropriate in some circumstances.

Disposition

The court GRANTED Google's motion to stay discovery. It ordered that discovery be STAYED until Google either answers the amended complaint or the motion-to-dismiss hearing date, whichever is earliest. The court stated that, at the hearing, Google could orally request an extension of the discovery stay if appropriate. This order addressed discovery only; it did not rule on Google's motion to dismiss or decide the merits of the plaintiffs' antitrust or unfair-competition claims.