Rodriguez v. Google LLC
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:20-cv-04688
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Rodriguez v. Google LLC, Magistrate Judge Tse denied broad discovery requests but ordered limited production of Arizona-case documents about Web & App Activity.
The order affected the plaintiffs’ ability to obtain documents from Google and limited Google’s discovery obligations to producing Arizona-action materials relating to Web & App Activity.
What happened
In Rodriguez v. Google LLC, the plaintiffs asked the court to require Google to produce documents responding to three discovery requests. The requests sought regulatory materials, privacy-related requests from regulators, and unredacted materials from an Arizona lawsuit.
The court ruled that Google did not need to produce documents responsive to the first request because reviewing about 100 regulatory investigations would be too burdensome compared with the likely benefit. It also ruled that the second request was too broad because it covered Google’s privacy practices generally rather than the particular practice involved in the case.
For the third request, the court ordered Google to produce unredacted discovery from the Arizona action relating to Web & App Activity, but not all discovery from that case. The order was signed by Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse.
The detailed version
- Rodriguez v. Google LLC · No. 3:20-cv-04688
- Richard Seeborg
- Feb. 8, 2021
Background
Plaintiffs moved to compel Google to produce documents responsive to three requests for production, meaning requests that one party in a lawsuit makes for documents held by another party. The order addressed each request separately.
Request No. 1: Regulatory investigations
Plaintiffs requested all documents Google had provided to any regulator since January 1, 2014, concerning Firebase and Google’s collection, interception, tracking, or use of user data, including through Google Analytics.
The court found this request disproportionate to the needs of the case. Google estimated that it had been involved in approximately 100 regulatory investigations worldwide during the seven-year period. The court also noted that no investigation during that period had focused specifically on Firebase and user data. Because the burden of reviewing the documents outweighed the likely benefit, the court ruled that Google need not produce documents responsive to Request No. 1.
Request No. 2: Requests from regulators
Plaintiffs requested all written requests Google had received from any regulator since January 1, 2014, concerning Google’s privacy practices or Firebase.
The court found the request overbroad and insufficiently tailored to the particular Google practice at issue in the lawsuit. Because the request sought documents concerning Google’s privacy practices generally, as well as documents concerning Firebase, the court ruled that Google did not need to produce documents responsive to Request No. 2.
Request No. 3: Arizona action
Plaintiffs requested unredacted copies of filings, exhibits, attachments, and all discovery from an Arizona state-court action involving Google. The court found that the Arizona action and this case overlapped in some respects, but that many settings and features at issue in the Arizona case were not at issue here. Plaintiffs therefore were not entitled to all discovery from that action because discovery is limited to matters relevant to a party’s claim or defense.
The court separately addressed Google’s Web & App Activity feature, which was involved in both cases. Google argued that documents from the Arizona case concerned what was stored when the feature was turned on, while this case concerned data collected and sent to Google when the feature was turned off. The court found that distinction unpersuasive and agreed that documents about what happens when Web & App Activity is turned on could bear on what happens, or does not happen, when it is turned off.
The court ordered Google to produce unredacted copies of discovery from the Arizona action relating to Web & App Activity. The court explained that this limited production was not a complete production of everything produced in the Arizona case. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.