From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. Google LLC

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Dec 27, 2021
20-cv-03664-LHK (SVK) (N.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2021)

Opinion

20-cv-03664-LHK (SVK) 20-cv-5146-LHK (SVK)

12-27-2021

CHASOM BROWN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant. PATRICK CALHOUN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant.


ORDER REGARDING DEPOSITION OF SUNDAR PICHAI RE: DKT. NOS. 357, 360, 361 (BROWN ACTION)

SUSAN VAN KEULEN, United States Magistrate Judge.

In the Brown v. Google action, the Court is in receipt of the Parties' submissions regarding the deposition of Google and Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai. Dkt. Nos. 357, 360, 361. Plaintiffs argue that Mr. Pichai has unique, personal knowledge of relevant issues relating to the Chrome browser and privacy concerns and that less intrusive means of discovering what Mr. Pichai knew and when he knew it have been ineffective. Defendant seeks to shield Mr. Pichai as an apex deponent, taking issue with Plaintiffs' interpretation of documents produced by Defendant. Following receipt of the Parties' joint submission, the Court requested and reviewed documents relied upon by both Plaintiffs and Defendant in their arguments. Dkt. Nos. 360, 361. Having carefully considered the Parties' submission, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs' request under the following conditions:

The Court received both electronic copies (under seal) and a chambers copy from Plaintiffs. However, as the chambers copy did not conform to the electronic copy, the Court used only the electronic copy in its review.

• Many of the cited documents, while conceivably relevant to Plaintiffs' claims in this case, do not appear to bear any connection to Mr. Pichai. See, e.g., GOOG-BROWN-00409986; GOOG-CABR-03750737. A few documents establish that specific relevant information was communicated to, and possibly from, Mr. Pichai. See, e.g., GOOG-BRWN-00048967.C; GOOG-CABR-05269678. Accordingly, Plaintiffs may depose Sundar Pichai for not more than two (2.0) hours of testimony.
• In the event the Calhoun Plaintiffs intend to seek the deposition of Mr. Pichai, the date for the deposition must be coordinated such that the witness sits for deposition only once, unless the witness chooses separate dates. In the Calhoun action, an independent showing under the apex standard will be required, and any time allowed for deposition will be in addition to the time allowed in the Brown matter.

The Court's citation to certain documents is for exemplary purposes only and is not exhaustive. Further, the Court's reference to any specific document is not intended as a limitation on the scope of deposition and may not be used as a basis for objection to deposition questioning.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Brown v. Google LLC

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Dec 27, 2021
20-cv-03664-LHK (SVK) (N.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2021)
Case details for

Brown v. Google LLC

Case Details

Full title:CHASOM BROWN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant. PATRICK…

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Dec 27, 2021

Citations

20-cv-03664-LHK (SVK) (N.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2021)