In this legal case, plaintiffs filed a motion for contempt against Google LLC, accusing the company of failing to comply with discovery orders and spoliating evidence. They claimed that Google did not preserve or produce key data related to the named plaintiffs, such as account identifiers that would link data to specific individuals. Google opposed the motion, arguing that it was both untimely and without merit. After reviewing the arguments, the court ultimately denied the motion for contempt and sanctions.

The case’s background centers around a discovery dispute from July 2022, when plaintiffs requested information about how Google links data in its real-time bidding (RTB) system to users’ Google accounts. Plaintiffs argued that Google was withholding evidence that could demonstrate that RTB data might qualify as personal information. In response, the court ordered Google in August 2022 to produce documents showing the specific data related to the plaintiffs that was shared in RTB auctions but did not rule that personal information was disclosed in such auctions.

Further disputes arose in February 2023 when plaintiffs moved for sanctions, alleging that Google deliberately withheld key data fields that could help identify plaintiffs’ data. Google countered that it used a unique query ID to link data and asserted that no sanctions were necessary. Although the court denied the motion for sanctions, it instructed Google to be more careful in future data productions, ensuring that omitted fields would be included where feasible.

In May 2023, additional disputes emerged when plaintiffs requested further data samples, particularly internal identifiers. Google agreed to investigate whether these identifiers could be shared but maintained that some data could not be provided. By May 2023, Google confirmed that it could offer additional data fields in future productions, but some data, like Google User IDs, could not be disclosed due to Google’s disclosure practices for RTB participants.

In April 2024, plaintiffs filed another motion alleging that Google had violated court orders by failing to produce specific data, including decrypted information, and sought sanctions under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court found the motion untimely, as it was filed well past the deadline for such motions. The court also ruled that Google had complied with prior discovery orders and was not required to produce the decrypted data, as the prior orders did not explicitly mandate it. The court concluded that Google’s actions did not deprive the plaintiffs of crucial evidence, and as such, denied both the motion for contempt and sanctions.

If your organization is seeking support with eDiscovery, our team has solutions to address all phases of the discovery process. At CODISCOVR, we deliver client-focused, defensible, and scalable solutions using advanced technology and intelligent review practices to meet eDiscovery, document review, and information governance needs in a manner that reduces the risks and costs associated with electronically stored information (ESI). Reach out to Nicole Gill, Chair, Managing Member CODISCOVR. With almost a decade of experience, she manages complex and high-profile eDiscovery projects and routinely navigates data and privacy protection laws across many domestic and foreign jurisdictions.