Rodriguez v. Google LLC

Background

The plaintiffs filed three motions. First, they sought a three-month extension of all deadlines in the case-management schedule, citing alleged discovery delays and Google’s alleged failure to produce certain information and documents. Second, they requested a technical special master—an outside person appointed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53 to handle specified matters—to oversee Google’s identification and production of data. Third, they sought leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint.

Schedule-extension motion

The court denied the request for relief from the case-management schedule. To obtain an extension, the plaintiffs had to show diligence in pursuing discovery and good cause for extending the deadline. The court noted that discovery deadlines had already been extended four times: by two months, six months, two and a half months, and one month. Because the case’s issues had been narrowed, the court found no good cause for a fifth, three-month extension. The court stated that specific discovery problems should be addressed through discovery motions or other prompt action rather than through an extension requested near the end of the discovery period.

Request for a special master

The court denied the request for a technical special master. Rule 53 permits appointment in specified circumstances, including with the parties’ consent or when exceptional conditions exist, and the court emphasized that such appointments are the exception. Google did not consent. The court also found that the plaintiffs’ assertions about their planning and Google’s alleged resistance to data production did not establish exceptional conditions, and that the plaintiffs had not shown that the issues could not be handled effectively and promptly by the court.

Motion to amend

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, leave to amend a pleading generally should be freely given when justice requires. Courts consider factors including bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and whether the amendment would be futile. The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend.

For Classes 1 and 2, the court allowed changes consistent with its earlier decision clarifying that AdMob and AdMob+ were within the class definitions. The court found no bad faith or undue delay and found that the changes were not futile or unduly prejudicial. Google did not object to those modifications based on the plaintiffs’ assurance that they would not require new discovery.

The court did not allow the plaintiffs to insert the word “including” before “Firebase SDK and AdMob SDKs” in a way that would make those products merely examples of broader “Google tracking or advertising code.” The court found that approach too open-ended because it could potentially encompass any or all of Google’s products. If retained, the phrase “Google tracking or advertising code” would have to function as an appositive of “Firebase SDK and AdMob SDK.” The court also did not give leave at that time to add the parenthetical phrase “including ‘webviews,’” finding that the phrase appeared unnecessary and had not been properly addressed by Google.

The court denied leave to add the proposed third class, which would cover people who turned off Web & App Activity but whose Google Search-related activity was allegedly saved and improperly used. The court found that the case had previously focused on data received through Firebase or products integrated with Firebase, rather than alleged wrongdoing involving Google Search. Adding Search at that late stage would prejudice Google by changing the litigation strategy and disrupting the case schedule after extensive discovery and multiple deadline extensions.

Disposition

The court denied the motion for relief from the case-management schedule and denied the request for appointment of a special master. It granted in part and denied in part the motion for leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs were ordered to file a complaint consistent with the court’s reasoning, and the defendants were ordered to file responsive pleadings within 30 days afterward.