In re Google RTB Consumer Privacy Litigation

Background

Plaintiffs and Google LLC asked the court to resolve a discovery dispute. Plaintiffs sought an order requiring Google to collect, review, and produce responsive documents from two custodians, Glenn Berntson and Stan Belov, for 2022. They also sought a second full day of deposition testimony from Belov.

The opinion states that Berntson and Belov are Google employees with engineering responsibilities that plaintiffs considered central to Google’s real-time bidding design and operation. Google had collected and reviewed documents from both custodians in early 2022 and completed production by April 21, 2022, the original deadline for substantial completion of document production. Google’s production for Berntson contained no 2022 documents, and its production for Belov contained only one 2022 document.

Plaintiffs had already deposed both custodians. According to the parties’ submission, Belov’s first deposition lasted nearly seven hours. Plaintiffs said they had not completed their examination because Belov was difficult and defense counsel made more than 350 objections. Google argued that plaintiffs had chosen to spend time on other subjects and had not shown good cause for another deposition.

Document-production request

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e) requires a party to supplement or correct a discovery response in a timely manner when it learns that the response is materially incomplete or incorrect, unless the additional information was otherwise made known during discovery or in writing. The court explained that this duty can continue after discovery closes or after an interim production deadline.

The court nevertheless ruled that the passage of time and the continued accumulation of responsive documents do not automatically make an earlier production materially incomplete or incorrect. Rule 26(e) does not impose a continuing obligation to produce documents every time they are created. Plaintiffs had not identified a specific document request, new development, or change in Google’s real-time bidding design or operation showing that Google’s earlier production had become materially inaccurate or incomplete. The court therefore denied plaintiffs’ request for supplemental production from Berntson and Belov.

Further deposition request

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(1) generally limits a deposition to one day of seven hours, subject to stipulation or a court order allowing additional time. A party seeking additional time must show good cause. The court found that plaintiffs had not identified the specific information they sought, explained why they could not obtain it during the first deposition, or shown why that information was critical to the case.

The court acknowledged that the number of defense objections was concerning but said it could not evaluate the objections without information about the questions involved. It also found that Belov’s importance to the case and the large volume of documents associated with him did not, by themselves, establish good cause. The court denied plaintiffs’ request for a further deposition of Belov.

Disposition

The court denied plaintiffs’ request for an order requiring Google to supplement its document production for Berntson and Belov and denied their request for a further deposition of Belov. The order was signed by Virginia K. Demarchi, United States Magistrate Judge.