Opinion
20-cv-05146-LHK (SVK)
12-29-2021
PATRICK CALHOUN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant.
ORDER RE DISCOVERY RELATING TO "INCOGNITO" MODE
RE: DKT. NO. 400
SUSAN VAN KEULEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Through a series of discovery submissions, followed by requests for clarification and further briefing by the Court, Plaintiffs seek a ruling that discovery relating to the Google Chrome browser mode known as “Incognito” is outside the scope of discovery and, apparently, trial. Dkt. nos. 400, 412. Google opposes the motion on the grounds that such a broad brush order would be inappropriate in this action, in part due to Plaintiffs' proposed class definition which expressly excludes use in Incognito mode. Dkt. nos. 400, 421. In support of their respective positions, both Parties discuss either the non-production (Plaintiffs) or voluminous production (Google) of Incognito-related documents in vague terms, unsupported by specifics. Plaintiffs do point to specific deposition questions posed by Google that include references to Incognito, along with references to “synced” status. Dkt. no. 412, at 2. Google argues that a handful of deposition questions does not justify the relief sought here. Dkt. no. 400.
Having given careful consideration to the arguments presented on this issue, as well as the long history of discovery disputes and this Court's previous orders, the Court finds insufficient support in the record presented to categorically order that Incognito is not, under any circumstances, relevant to this action. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' request is DENIED, without prejudice to Plaintiff raising as a motion in limine before the trial judge, if warranted.
SO ORDERED.