The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 ZACHARY CROWELL, et al., Case No. 25-cv-02775-RFL (SK)
8 Plaintiffs,
ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE
9 v.
10 GOOGLE LLC, et al., Regarding Docket No. 102
11 Defendants.
12 Now before the Court is the discovery dispute between the parties regarding whether
13 Defendant Google LLC (“Google”) is required to should produce materials from three other cases
14 against it in the Northern District of California: (1) In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation,
15 Nos. 3:21-md-02981-JD and 3:20-cv-05671-JD (“Play Store”); (2) Rodriguez v. Google LLC, No.
16 3:20-cv-04688-RS (“Rodriguez”); and (3) Brown v. Google LLC, No. 4:20-cv-03664-YGR
17 (“Brown”).
18 In this case, as the District Judge described, “Plaintiffs allege that Google LLC has
19 unlawfully foreclosed competition in the U.S. general search services market through exclusive
20 dealing agreements with mobile device manufacturers, mobile device sellers, and browser
21 developers.” (Dkt. No. 66.) Plaintiffs here already have the findings of the Court in United States
22 v. Google LLC, 747 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2024) (“DOJ case”), and the District Judge already
23 found that Google should produce “most everything” from the DOJ case. (Dkt. Nos. 83, 86.)
24 Plaintiffs’ counsel here already have the documents they seek from the Brown and
25 Rodriguez actions because “they represented the plaintiffs in those cases.” (Dkt. No. 102.) They
26 do not have access to documents from the Play Store action. Plaintiffs argue that the court should
27 allow them to use any materials from Brown and Rodriguez in this litigation. And with regard to
] documents produced in that case.
2 Google argues that Plaintiffs should not be able to obtain “cloned discovery” from the
3 || three other actions because the issues in the other three cases and this case are not substantially
4 || similar. Google instead proposes that it apply search terms during a specified time period to the
5 materials from the three other actions and that it produce those relevant documents from that
6 search.
7 The undersigned agrees that the three other actions are not similar enough to this case to
8 allow Plaintiffs the wholesale use of the materials in the other actions. The undersigned finds that
9 || Google’s proposal, using the search terms based on subjects provided by Plaintiffs, and time
10 || period it proposed, is reasonable and proportional to the case. Thus, the undersigned DENIES
11 Plaintiffs’ request and ORDERS that Google review and produce the responsive documents.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13 || Dated: June 8, 2026
me
. hw
14
SALLIE KIM
2 15 United States Magistrate Judge
16
17
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28