Stebbins v. Google LLC
- 3:23-cv-00322
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Stebbins v. Google LLC, the court ordered compliance and an explanation for possible sanctions over recordings, without yet imposing sanctions.
David A. Stebbins was ordered to identify recordings, delete copies, file an affidavit, and explain why sanctions should not be imposed. Google LLC was invited to submit billing records for enforcement efforts.
What happened
In Stebbins v. Google LLC, David A. Stebbins acknowledged recording a meet-and-confer conversation with Google’s counsel, posting it on YouTube, and linking to it in an unsealed filing. The court had previously ordered him to remove recordings, delete copies, and stop recording conversations with Google’s counsel.
The court ordered Stebbins to identify all recordings involving him and counsel for Google, YouTube, Alphabet, or Wilson Sonsini attorneys. It also ordered him to file an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, confirming that he deleted the recordings and would not record future conversations with Google’s counsel about the case.
The court ordered Stebbins to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for bad-faith conduct. The court warned that sanctions could include monetary penalties or dismissal with prejudice, and set a November 14, 2023 hearing on the order and Stebbins’s motion to set aside judgment. The opinion does not impose sanctions at this stage.
The detailed version
- Stebbins v. Google LLC · No. 3:23-cv-00322
- Sept. 13, 2023
Background
David A. Stebbins conceded that he recorded a meet-and-confer conversation with counsel for Google LLC, uploaded the recording to YouTube, and included a link to the publicly accessible recording in an unsealed court filing.
On August 31, 2023, the court ordered Stebbins to immediately remove from YouTube all recorded conversations with Google. The court also ordered him to delete all copies of conversations between him and Google and to stop making future recordings of conversations with Google’s counsel.
Stebbins later filed a motion to set aside judgment and stated that he had removed the video of the Rule 26(f) conference call. Google then reported that its efforts to meet and confer with Stebbins about compliance had been unsuccessful. According to Google’s filing, Stebbins did not substantively respond to requests that he identify other recordings involving Google, Alphabet, or Wilson Sonsini attorneys and confirm in writing that he had deleted all copies.
Orders
The court ordered Stebbins to respond to Google’s request to identify all recordings of conversations between him and counsel for Google, YouTube, or Alphabet, including other conversations he had with Wilson Sonsini attorneys.
The court further ordered Stebbins to file an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, stating that he had complied with the earlier order by deleting all copies of the recordings and attesting that he would not record conversations with Google’s counsel concerning the case going forward.
The court also ordered Stebbins to show cause—meaning explain why the court should not take a particular action—why sanctions should not be imposed for bad-faith conduct. The court stated that possible sanctions included monetary penalties and dismissal of the action with prejudice. The court invited Google to submit billing records for time spent trying to enforce the August 31 order.
Deadlines and hearing
The court required Stebbins’s response to Google’s meet-and-confer letter, the affidavit, and the response to the order to show cause to be filed and served by September 20, 2023. The court warned that a failure to respond timely would result in monetary sanctions and dismissal of the case with prejudice.
The court set the hearing on the order to show cause and Stebbins’s motion to set aside judgment for November 14, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. Pacific time. This order did not itself impose sanctions or dismiss the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.