Opinion

1

2

3

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

7

8 GEMINI DATA, INC., Case No. 24-cv-06412-JSW (PHK)

9 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST

FOR SUPPLEMENTATION OF

10 v. DISCOVERY RESPONSES

11 GOOGLE LLC, Re: Dkts. 63 and 108

Defendant.

12

13 INTRODUCTION

14 This case arises out of a dispute between Plaintiff Gemini Data, Inc. (“Gemini”) and

15 Defendant Google, LLC (“Google”) regarding alleged trademark infringement. Gemini, a start-up

16 founded in 2013, holds registered “GEMINI” trademarks for AI software and services. [Dkt. 63 at

17 2]. Google, allegedly unaware of Gemini’s registrations, decided on the name “Gemini” for its deep

18 learning model research in 2023, and eventually named its AI chatbot “Gemini” in 2024. Id. at 4-5.

19 Plaintiff asserts claims for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair

20 competition. [Dkt 1].

21 All discovery matters in this case have been referred to the undersigned. [Dkt. 49]. Now

22 before the Court is a joint discovery letter brief filed by the Parties regarding Plaintiff’s request for

23 supplementation of discovery responses. [Dkt. 63]. The letter brief was filed on November 18, 2025.

24 Id. Fact discovery closed on December 18, 2025. [Dkt. 49]. The Court heard oral argument on this

25 matter on January 29, 2026. [Dkt. 98]. At the hearing, the Court resolved the instant disputes

26 verbally and ordered certain supplementation of discovery responses by February 24, 2026 and the

27 filing of a Joint Status Report on that supplementation on February 26, 2026. Id. The Parties filed

1 After carefully reviewing the letter brief, the Parties’ arguments, the Joint Status Report, and

2 all relevant submissions, the Court issues this Order memorializing its verbal directives from the

3 January 29 hearing (which are hereby incorporated by reference).

4 LEGAL STANDARD

5 The Court has broad discretion and authority to manage discovery. U.S. Fidelity & Guar.

6 Co. v. Lee Inv. LLC, 641 F.3d 1126, 1136 n.10 (9th Cir. 2011) (“District courts have wide latitude

7 in controlling discovery, and their rulings will not be overturned in the absence of a clear abuse of

8 discretion.”); Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Int., 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court’s discretion

9 extends to crafting discovery orders that may expand, limit, or differ from the relief requested. See

10 Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998) (holding trial courts have “broad discretion to

11 tailor discovery narrowly and to dictate the sequence of discovery”). For example, the Court may

12 limit the scope of any discovery method if it determines that “the discovery sought is unreasonably

13 cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less

14 burdensome, or less expensive.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i).

15 The relevant legal standards for discovery are well-known. Rule 26(b)(1) delineates the

16 scope of discovery in federal civil actions and provides that “[p]arties may obtain discovery

17 regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional

18 to the needs of the case.” Information need not be admissible to be discoverable. Id. Relevancy for

19 purposes of discovery is broadly defined to encompass “any matter that bears on, or that reasonably

20 could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” In re Williams-

21 Sonoma, Inc., 947 F.3d 535, 539 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437

22 U.S. 340, 350-51 (1978)); see also In re Facebook, Inc. Consumer Privacy User Profile Litig., No.

23 18-MD-2843 VC (JSC), 2021 WL 10282215, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2021) (“Courts generally

24 recognize that relevancy for purposes of discovery is broader than relevancy for purposes of trial.”)

25 (alteration omitted).

26 While the scope of relevance is broad, discovery is not unlimited. ATS Prods., Inc. v.

27 Champion Fiberglass, Inc., 309 F.R.D. 527, 531 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (“Relevancy, for the purposes of

1 Information, even if relevant, must be “proportional to the needs of the case” to fall within the scope

2 of permissible discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The 2015 amendments to Rule 26(b)(1)

3 emphasize the need to impose reasonable limits on discovery through increased reliance on the

4 commonsense concept of proportionality: “The objective is to guard against redundant or

5 disproportionate discovery by giving the court authority to reduce the amount of discovery that may

6 be directed to matters that are otherwise proper subjects of inquiry. The [proportionality

7 requirement] is intended to encourage judges to be more aggressive in identifying and discouraging

8 discovery overuse.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 advisory committee’s note to 2015 amendment. In evaluating

9 the proportionality of a discovery request, the Court considers “the importance of the issues at stake

10 in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to the information, the parties'

11 resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense

12 of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

13 The party seeking discovery bears the burden of establishing that its request satisfies the

14 relevancy requirements under Rule 26(b)(1). La. Pac. Corp. v. Money Mkt. 1 Inst. Inv. Dealer, 285

15 F.R.D. 481, 485 (N.D. Cal. 2012). The resisting party, in turn, has the burden to show that the

16 discovery should not be allowed. Id. The resisting party must specifically explain the reasons why

17 the request at issue is objectionable and may not rely on boilerplate, conclusory, or speculative

18 arguments. Id.; see also Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975) (“Under

19 the liberal discovery principles of the Federal Rules defendants were required to carry a heavy

20 burden of showing why discovery was denied.”).

21 With regard to proportionality, “[t]he parties and the court have a collective responsibility

22 to consider the proportionality of all discovery and consider it in resolving discovery disputes.” Fed.

23 R. Civ. P. 26 advisory committee’s note to 2015 amendment. “A party claiming undue burden or

24 expense ordinarily has far better information—perhaps the only information—with respect to that

25 part of the determination. A party claiming that a request is important to resolve the issues should

26 be able to explain the ways in which the underlying information bears on the issues as that party

27 understands them. The court’s responsibility, using all the information provided by the parties, is to

1 scope of discovery.” Id.

2 As part of its inherent discretion and authority, the Court has broad discretion in determining

3 relevancy for discovery purposes. Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th

4 Cir. 2005) (citing Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002)). Similarly, a district court’s

5 determination as to proportionality of discovery is within the district court’s discretion. See Jones

6 v. Riot Hospitality Grp. LLC, 95 F.4th 730, 737-38 (9th Cir. 2024) (finding district court did not

7 abuse discretion on proportionality ruling). Ultimately, “the timing, sequencing and proportionality

8 of discovery is left to the discretion of the Court.” Toro v. Centene Corp., No. 19-cv-05163 LHK

9 (NC), 2020 WL 6108643, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2020).

10 DISCUSSION

11 The Parties’ Letter Brief presents a dispute over Plaintiff’s request for supplementation of

12 discovery responses. Plaintiff requests “tailored discovery on one key topic: Google’s competing

13 products and services advertising ‘Gemini’ marks, and the profits from those products.” [Dkt. 63 at

14 2] (emphasis in original). Specifically, Gemini asks Google to supplement Interrogatory Nos. 6-8,

15 14, and 17, and RFP Nos. 39 and 51. Id. at 3. At the discovery hearing, Plaintiff withdrew the request

16 to supplement the written interrogatories and narrowed the scope of RFP Nos. 39 and 51 to include

17 only Gemini for Google Workspace and Gemini Enterprise.

18 Defendant does not dispute the relevancy of Plaintiff’s request in the briefing, nor did

19 Defendant raise any such dispute at the hearing. Thus, the relevance of Plaintiff’s request is not at

20 issue.

21 Instead, Defendant argues Plaintiff’s request is not proportional and unduly burdensome. In

22 the Letter Brief, Defendant maintains “Plaintiff’s request for discovery on ten different products is

23 not ‘narrow.’” Id. at 6. In response, Plaintiff significantly narrowed the scope of its discovery request

24 by limiting the focus to two products and withdrawing the portion of the request regarding

25 supplementation of written interrogatories.

26 Despite this narrowing, Defendant continues to argue the request is unduly burdensome.

27 Rather than provide any concrete factual explanation as to why the request is unduly burdensome,

1 instructs, “[t]he joint [discovery] letter may not be accompanied by any declarations, unless a Party

2 declaration is needed to support a specific claim of undue burden.” See Standing Discovery Order

3 at Section H(3) (emphasis added). Thus, Defendant had notice that a declaration could, and in fact

4 should, be submitted to support an undue burden claim. Still, Defendant neglected to submit any

5 supporting declaration. Accordingly, Defendant has failed to demonstrate that Plaintiff’s request is

6 unduly burdensome in the first instance, let alone after the narrowing of scope.

7 As stated at the January 29 hearing, Plaintiff’s request for supplemental discovery is

8 DENIED-IN-PART and GRANTED-IN-PART. Plaintiff’s request for supplementation of

9 Interrogatory Nos. 6, 7, and 14 is DENIED AS MOOT, because Plaintiff orally withdrew this

10 request at the hearing.

11 Plaintiff’s request for supplementation of the responses to RFP Nos. 39 and 51 is DENIED

12 to the extent the RFPs are duplicative of Interrogatory Nos. 8 and 17.

13 Plaintiff’s request for supplementation of the responses to Interrogatory Nos. 8 and 17

14 regarding data on the revenue, costs, and sales of Gemini for Google Workspace and Gemini

15 Enterprise is GRANTED. As ordered verbally at the January 29 hearing, Defendant was

16 ORDERED to produce the supplemental response to Interrogatory Nos. 8 and 17 by February 24,

17 2026. [Dkt. 98]. In the Joint Status Report, Google reports that it “has fully complied with the

18 Court’s January 29, 2026 Order (Dkt. 98)”. [Dkt. 108 at 2].

19 In the Joint Status Report, Gemini responds to Google’s portion of the report by raising

20 requests that go beyond the original discovery dispute, such as a request barring Google to “later

21 produce or introduce any documents or evidence relating to any ‘elements of cost or deduction

22 claimed.’” Id. at 3. Gemini further raises a concern that “Google’s supplemental interrogatory

23 response also suggests that Google seeks to leave the door open for additional productions of

24 evidence related to costs and expenses down the road.” Id. at 4. Finally, Gemini adds a new request

25 that Google be required to produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness “to explain the three new financial

26 spreadsheets (and one modified spreadsheet) that Google produced and relied on for its

27 supplemental February 24 interrogatory responses.” Id. at 5.

1 supplemental interrogatory response is the complaint that Google provided supplemental data only

2 to the extent such data is kept in the ordinary course of business. Id. at 3. Gemini argues that the

3 interrogatories as drafted were not limited to data kept in the ordinary course of business and raises

4 a concern that Google may somehow attempt to introduce new evidence at some later time based

5 on this “caveat.” Id. at 4. Google argues that “Google does not track and/or maintain revenue, costs

6 and sales specific to Gemini functionality for Google Workspace in the ordinary course of business,

7 nor does it track or maintain costs specific to Gemini Enterprise in the ordinary course of business.”

8 Id. at 2.

9 Gemini’s arguments were considered and rejected at the January 29 hearing. A Party is not

10 required to create new, previously nonexistent data for an Opposing Party to respond to a discovery

11 request, if the data is not kept in the ordinary course of business. See Prescott v. AAA Auto Club of

12 S. Cal. et al., No. CV 13-8953-MWF (PLAx), 2015 WL 14094759 at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2015)

13 (agreeing that a party “need not create new documents to respond to discovery”). Further, Gemini’s

14 fear that Google may somehow attempt to introduce new evidence at some later date has, so far,

15 proven unfounded and is simply not a ripe dispute (nor is it necessarily a dispute within the scope

16 of the Discovery Referral Order, depending on how the dispute is framed as an actual discovery

17 dispute as opposed to an evidentiary objection more properly raised at trial).

18 In that regard, the Court issued a Text Order dated February 27, 2026 in which the Court

19 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE “any requests for a discovery order” contained in the Joint

20 Status Report. [Dkt. 109]. That February 27 Text Order is incorporated herein by reference. To

21 the extent the Joint Status Report attempts to raise new discovery disputes (including raising fears

22 over things that have not happened yet and may never happen) or attempts to seek further, additional

23 relief not requested in the original Joint Discovery Letter Brief, any such new disputes are not ripe

24 and premature. There is no indication in the record that the Parties fully complied with all meet and

25 confer requirements and Section H(2) of the Standing Discovery Order with regard to any of these

26 new disputes, issues, or requests for additional discovery.

27 CONCLUSION

] PART the motion to compel further discovery supplementation as raised in the Parties’ Letter Brief.

2 This Order RESOLVES Dkts. 63 and 108.

3

4 || ITISSO ORDERED.

5 Dated: March 20, 2026

Ce 4

7

PETER H. KANG

8 United States Magistrate Judge

9

10

1]

a 12

2

15

16

17

Z 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28