Brown v. Google LLC
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-03664
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Brown v. Google LLC, Judge Rogers set case-management deadlines, referred evidence disputes to a special master, and granted a stipulation.
The plaintiffs, Google, LLC, and the other parties and counsel in the case are affected by the deadlines, evidence-dispute procedures, amended-complaint filing, and trial schedule.
What happened
Brown v. Google LLC is an ongoing case in which the court set dates for summary-judgment filings, a pretrial conference, and a jury trial.
The court referred the parties’ evidence disputes to a special master, set deadlines for that process, and granted a stipulation allowing the plaintiffs to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. The order also stated that the defendants’ prior answer would apply to that complaint.
Judge Yvonne Rogers issued the order on March 2, 2023. The order set a May 12, 2023 hearing on the summary-judgment motions and a November 6, 2023 jury-trial date, while noting that the trial date could be advanced.
The detailed version
- Brown v. Google LLC · No. 4:20-cv-03664
- Yvonne Rogers
- Mar. 2, 2023
Background
The court issued a case-management and pretrial order establishing the schedule for the action. The order set briefing dates for the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and Google’s cross-motion for summary judgment, as well as a May 12, 2023 hearing on those motions.
Case Schedule and Evidence Disputes
The order set additional deadlines for identifying a special master to resolve the parties’ evidentiary disputes. It also set deadlines for motions in limine, which are requests to exclude anticipated evidence before it is offered at trial. The order scheduled a joint pretrial statement, trial binders, a pretrial conference, and a jury trial beginning November 6, 2023. It stated that the trial date could be advanced if the court’s calendar opened, but not to a date less than eight weeks after discovery closed.
Amended Pleading and Ruling
The court granted the stipulation at Docket No. 880. It directed the plaintiffs to file their Fourth Amended Complaint and directed the parties to file a stipulation providing that the defendants’ prior answer would apply to that complaint and that no further response was required. The order also referred the parties to the court’s standing orders for additional procedures. This was a case-management order; it did not decide the merits of the parties’ claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.