Opinion
21-cv-00229-HSG (LJC)
05-28-2024
RUMBLE, INC., Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant.
ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF
RE: ECF NO. 108
LISA J. CISNEROS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Pending before the Court is the parties' Joint Discovery Letter Brief. ECF No. 108. Plaintiff Rumble, Inc. requests an order compelling Defendant Google LLC to produce documents from the case United States of America, et. al., v. Google LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-03010-APM (D.D.C.) (hereinafter, the DOJ Case), specifically, all trial transcripts (including fact and expert witness testimony, oral argument by counsel, and opening statements and closing arguments), all exhibits admitted into evidence by any party during the trial, all demonstratives used by counsel for any party during the trial, and all expert reports (opening, rebuttal, and reply) produced by any party during the trial. Id. at 3. Google objects based on relevance, burden, and third-party confidentiality concerns. Id. at 5-7.
Unless specified otherwise, the Court refers to the PDF page number generated by the Court's efiling system.
Rumble's request for an order compelling Google to produce the requested documents is hereby DENIED without prejudice. The request is overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of Rumble's case. Rumble seeks all trial documents for a case in which it has not demonstrated that the same Google products and agreements are at issue. It is possible that some of the trial materials could be relevant to Rumble's claims because they are evidence of Google's alleged anticompetitive intent through the preinstallation of a Google app (YouTube) on certain smart devices. In Rumble's view, preinstallation appears to be a type of “default option,” though Google contends that this is not the “default” at issue in the DOJ Case. The Court previously found a significant factual and legal overlap between the allegations in this case and the allegations in the DOJ Case, given that the DOJ's Amended Complaint described how Google required smartphone and tablet manufacturers to preinstall a bundle of Google apps, including YouTube, on their devices in a way that prevented consumers from deleting them. See ECF No. 93. The Court authorized Rumble to search Google's prior productions in the DOJ Case for relevant evidence. Id. at 14. On the existing record, however, the Court is unpersuaded that Rumble is entitled to hundreds of thousands of pages of documents from the DOJ trial. Rumble makes sweeping, categorical requests for all trial documents and expert reports, and its reliance on the same principle that preinstallation confers on Google a competitive advantage is not sufficient to establish relevancy across such broad categories of documents. Furthermore, Rumble's request creates an undue burden on Google, given that certain of the requested materials are likely publicly available in some form, and Rumble has failed to explain why these public materials are insufficient.
If Rumble wishes to bring a new request for a narrower set of trial transcripts, trial exhibits, demonstratives, and/or expert reports exchanged during the course of the DOJ Case, then the parties shall meet and confer via videoconference as to that modified request no later than May 31, 2024. If a dispute remains after the meet and confer, then the parties may file a joint letter of no more than eight pages. Supporting exhibits are permitted to be attached to the letter. The joint letter and exhibits shall be due no later than June 7, 2024, the current deadline for fact discovery in this case. In that joint letter, the parties shall address whether the requested materials are relevant and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the factors set forth under Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The joint letter shall also specifically address, among other things, what materials are already publicly available, the extent to which third-party confidential information is contained in the discoverable materials and what redactions will be necessary, and the particular requirements as to third-party confidential information set forth in the protective order in the DOJ Case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.