In re Google RTB Consumer Privacy Litigation

Background

The plaintiffs are Google account holders who allege that Google sells or otherwise discloses their personal and private information to third-party companies through real-time bidding, or RTB, Google’s advertising-auction process. The case includes contract, privacy, California Information Privacy Act, and Electronic Communications Privacy Act claims, among others. The plaintiffs seek damages and several forms of equitable relief.

The dispute concerned the plaintiffs’ notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). That rule allows a party to question an organization through one or more representatives about matters identified with reasonable particularity. The plaintiffs sought testimony on 15 topics and asked Google to produce a representative by June 15, 2022. Google sought a protective order, which is an order limiting discovery, and objected to the proposed timing.

Rulings on the Deposition Topics

The court would not require testimony on Topic 1 as drafted because it was overbroad and would be an inefficient way to identify witnesses. It likewise would not require testimony on Topic 2 as drafted because the topic was poorly crafted and the plaintiffs had not adequately explained the information they sought.

For Topic 3, Google had to designate a representative regarding how RTB operates, including certain matters involving information used or disclosed through RTB, participant eligibility and agreements, pricing, and the linking of information with information already compiled about RTB targets. Google did not have to provide testimony about how information is collected and stored, or about bid winners, storage of bids, and Google-owned properties participating in RTB.

For Topic 4, Google had to provide testimony about changes to RTB that affected disclosure of account-holder information to third parties or the use of that information. It did not have to provide testimony about the remainder of the topic as drafted.

For Topics 5, 6, and 7, Google had to provide limited testimony about account-holder profiles and other categories shared with third-party RTB participants or used to target account holders, identifiers and cookies linked to account holders or used for targeting, and location information disclosed to third-party RTB participants. The court excluded the remaining portions of those topics.

The court would not require testimony on Topic 8 as drafted because it was vague and confusing. For Topics 9, 10, and 13, the plaintiffs could seek factual testimony about Google’s policies, disclosures, statements, and consent process, but they could not use the deposition to obtain Google’s legal arguments or legal conclusions. The court limited Topic 9 to policies and statements concerning disclosure of account-holder information to third-party RTB participants or use of that information to target account holders. It also limited Topic 10 and declined to require testimony about investigations that were not described with reasonable particularity. Google did not have to provide a representative on Topic 13 until the plaintiffs described the requested information with reasonable particularity.

For Topic 11, Google had to provide testimony about studies and analyses concerning users’ expectations, knowledge, and awareness of RTB, information disclosed to third-party participants, and information used to target account holders. It did not have to provide testimony about the remainder of that topic. The court deferred Topic 14, which concerned the value of account-holder information and Google’s financial benefit from RTB, until related document-discovery disputes were resolved. The court did not require separate testimony on Topic 15 because it substantially overlapped with other topics.

Timing and Further Proceedings

The court was not persuaded that the plaintiffs needed to take the deposition by June 15 to prepare for their class-certification motion. It stated that Google should make its representatives available promptly after July 11, 2022, when Google was required to substantially complete document production.

The court also directed the parties to confer and file an agreed proposal or separate proposals by June 14, 2022 concerning discovery about the creation, source, and storage of Google account-holder information. The court identified this as a recurring issue and said it would benefit from a further short written submission.

Disposition

The court limited the deposition notice as described above, did not require Google to provide representatives for the excluded portions, deferred its decision on Topic 14, declined to require the deposition by June 15, and ordered further submissions concerning the scope of relevant discovery. The opinion is signed by Virginia K. Demarchi, United States Magistrate Judge.