Rodriguez v. Google LLC

Background

Numerous mobile applications use Google’s Firebase software, which transmits users’ app-usage data to Google. The plaintiffs used Firebase-powered applications and disabled a particular Google data-collection feature on their phones or through Google’s website. They alleged that Google nevertheless collected their app-usage data without consent.

This order addressed a dispute about electronically stored information (ESI), meaning data maintained in electronic form. Google’s policy was to delete Firebase app-usage data every 56 days. Plaintiffs argued that this practice destroyed relevant evidence and asked the court to require Google to stop deleting the data, at least until the parties agreed on a preservation plan.

Google argued that its retention policy was reasonable because it collected an enormous amount of data. Its app-measurement logs recorded an average of 135 billion entries per day, occupying more than 27 petabytes of storage. Google estimated that preserving one year of this data would cost $3 million and preserving three years would cost $6 million. The court accepted those estimates as supported by the record, including Google’s explanation that preserving the entire data set might be necessary to identify users because the logs are anonymized and users may repeatedly turn the feature on and off.

Analysis

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e), which requires reasonable, proportionate preservation of ESI rather than perfect preservation. The court concluded that plaintiffs had not persuasively shown why they needed more than 56 days of data. Plaintiffs said they wanted the information for class certification and expert analysis concerning the number of alleged interceptions and Google’s alleged unjust enrichment, but they did not explain why statistical sampling could not use data Google already retained or data from the named plaintiffs, which Google offered to preserve and produce.

The court also found that depositions of Google and its employees, written discovery requests, and statistical sampling could provide more direct and less burdensome ways to estimate the relevant information than requiring Google to preserve massive amounts of anonymous users’ data.

Plaintiffs separately asked the court to order Google to identify relevant data sources and to require the parties to negotiate an ESI preservation plan. The court said intervention on identifying data sources was premature because plaintiffs first needed to use available discovery tools, including depositions under Rule 30(b)(6), to try to identify those sources. The court also declined to require negotiations over a plan that would preserve more than 56 days of data for all proposed class members, for the same reasons it rejected the broader preservation request.

Rulings

The court denied plaintiffs’ requests for relief. It did not require Google to change its current ESI retention policy, but stated that the parties must continue cooperating in good faith to preserve and share relevant ESI. The court separately denied Google’s motion to seal the cost estimates and supporting declaration because Google had not shown that public disclosure would cause specific prejudice or harm.

The order was a discovery and evidence-preservation ruling; it did not decide the plaintiffs’ underlying allegations about whether Google unlawfully collected their data.