Arcell et al v. Google LLC et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARY KATHERINE ARCELL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GOOGLE LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 22-cv-02499-RFL
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE
PRETRIAL ORDER OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Re: Dkt. No. 276
Having reviewed Magistrate Judge Kim’s Order on Apple’s Motion for Sanctions (Dkt.
No. 272 (“Sanctions Order”)) as well as the Motion for Relief from the Sanctions Order and its
supporting papers (Dkt. No. 276), the Sanctions Order is well-reasoned and is not clearly
erroneous or contrary to law. The conclusion that the November 25, 2025 deposition subpoenas
were issued in “bad faith” because “Plaintiffs had attempted no additional discovery and ignored
the Order quashing the October 3, 2025 subpoena to Cook,” before re-issuing subpoenas that had
already been quashed is well-supported by the record and not contrary to law. See Legal Voice v.
Stormans Inc., 738 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2013) (explaining that sanctions under Rule
45(d)(1) are discretionary and that renewing discovery requests that have been previously denied
“may be an indication of vexatious conduct”).
Likewise, the Sanctions Order does not err in finding that Plaintiffs’ December 24, 2025
and February 2026 subpoenas were issued for an “improper purpose.” The joint discovery letters
reflect that Plaintiffs failed to clearly articulate legitimate reasons why the discovery sought
would be relevant to their existing claims against Google and instead framed their purpose in
obtaining the discovery at issue in terms of their desire to discover Apple’s intent and reinstate
Apple as a defendant. Therefore, finding that the December and February subpoenas had been
Case 3:22-cv-02499-RFL Document 277 Filed 09/28/26 Page 1 of 2

2
served for an improper purpose was neither clear error nor contrary to law. Rule 45(d)(1)
authorizes sanctions here, where the improper issuance of the subpoenas, not subsequent attorney
advocacy, created the burden on Apple. See Mount Hope Church v. Bash Back!, 705 F.3d 418,
429 (9th Cir. 2012).
Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 28, 2026
RITA F. LIN
United States District Judge
Case 3:22-cv-02499-RFL Document 277 Filed 09/28/26 Page 2 of 2