Doe I et al v. Google LLC

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JOHN DOE I, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant.
Case No. 23-cv-02431-VC (SVK)
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE AT
DKT. 252
Re: Dkt. No. 252
The Court has reviewed the Parties’ Joint Submission and the Joint Discovery Dispute
Chart which includes positions of compromise, including Plaintiff’s Compromise Health
Verticals. Dkt. 251-1, 251-2.1 At this juncture, the matter is suitable for resolution without oral
argument, (see Civil L.R. 7(b)-1), although the Parties have more work to do, as ordered below.
This putative class action arises out of Defendant Google LLC’s (“Google”) alleged
collection of private medical information from health-related websites. See Dkt. 159-3 (“SAC”).
In the dispute at hand, Plaintiffs seek the identification of Web Properties,2 in addition to the six
identified in the operative complaint, “on which Google collects information that it has
categorized as being associated with a Health Vertical….” Dkt. 251-2 at 1-2 (Request for
Production (“RFP”) 16).3 Plaintiffs identify a list of Health Verticals that it requests Google to
search for responsive Web Properties.4 Id. Plaintiffs argue that the expansive identification is
1 The Parties’ Joint Statement and the accompanying joint chart are filed provisionally under seal,
pursuant to this Court’s Order Granting as modified the Parties’ Stipulation authorizing an
Omnibus Sealing Order, (Dkt. 220). In the interest of public access, this Order does not contain
any of the proposed-to-be-redacted portions of the Parties’ filings.
2 Defined as domains and apps. Dkt. 251-1 at 1.
3 RFP 17 similarly seeks identification of Web Properties where “the developer identified the
property as belonging to the health industry during the Google Analytics sign-up process.” Dkt.
251-2 at 2-4. Both RFP 16 and 17 identify specific sub-categories of information Plaintiffs seek
as to each Web Property identified. Id. at 1-4.
4 Plaintiffs do not identify the number of requested verticals; Google claims it is 64; the Court
counts 75. Dkt. 251-2. Given that each vertical has an unknown number of domains and apps
Case 3:23-cv-02431-VC Document 266 Filed 02/17/26 Page 1 of 4

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
supported by the allegations in the SAC and essential to both class certification and ultimate issues
of liability. Dkt. 251-1 at 3-6. Google counters in the first instance that discovery should be
limited to the six websites specifically identified in the operative complaint. Dkt. 251-1 at 8.
Google further argues that Plaintiffs’ compromise list of Health Verticals would capture “hundreds
of millions” of websites, many of which would be irrelevant to issues in this case and may not
have ever used a Google product which resulted in the transfer of medical information to Google.”
Id. at 6, 8-9.
The Court finds that, generally, the identification of additional Web Properties is relevant
in light of allegations in the SAC and the proposed class definitions. SAC, ¶¶ 79, 98, 191. The
case management order in this case also supports class-wide discovery in advance of class
certification by virtue of the limited discovery period following class certification. Dkt. 218. As
for proportionality, the use of a set of Health Verticals to identify responsive Web Properties is at
least a first step in the right direction. Where to go from here, requires a robust meet and confer
effort by the Parties on the following points:
• 	In the Joint Submission, Plaintiffs twice state that they have identified specific websites for
which they want the information delineated in RFPs 16 and 17. See Dkt. 251-1 at 3:4, 6:9.
It is not clear if Plaintiffs are referring to their compromise list of Health Verticals, or if
they have identified to Google specific domains for which they want the listed sub-
categories of data. 	The latter would obviously present a significant step towards
proportionality.
• 	Google points out that the Health Verticals are subject matter categories and are not
“limited to websites/apps that use a Google product, and nor was it created for Google
Analytics.” See Dkt. 251-1 at 7. However, Google never proffers a means to refine
Plaintiffs’ use of Health Verticals. For example, for any given Health Vertical, can Google
identify and eliminate the Web Properties that did not use a Google product? If so, then
this may be a sensible further step to proportionality.
associated with it, the difference between 64 and 75 is highly likely to be immaterial.
Case 3:23-cv-02431-VC Document 266 Filed 02/17/26 Page 2 of 4

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
• 	Google also argues that even if a Web Property uses Google Analytics, there is no showing
“that the Google Analytics is present on webpages that could potentially reveal Health
Information.” Dkt. 251-1 at 9. This level of detail may be significant for proof of issues
related to class certification or liability; however the standard for discoverability is not so
exacting. Nevertheless, if Google has the means to refine identification of Web Properties
at this level of detail, that may further inform proportionality.
• 	It is not clear to the Court where the Parties stand on the sub-categories in RFP 16 and 17.
In the Joint Statement, Plaintiffs cryptically state that, “The parties do not have a current
dispute about the other aspects of these two RFPs.” Dkt. 251-1 at 1 n. 1. Google
complains about the “17” sub-categories of information sought for each RFP and urges that
they are “unclear, unjustified, and plainly unworkable….” Id. at 7-8. Yet, in compromise,
for the six domains in the SAC, Google offers to provide the data for subcategories 1-2 and
5-7 for RFP 16 and subcategories 1-3 and 6-7 for RFP 17. So at least these categories are
not “unclear” and are likely not as “unworkable” as initially suggested.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	Google will ultimately produce information regarding additional Web Properties, beyond
the six specifically identified in the SAC. The use of Health Verticals is the first step, but
not the last, to identify the relevant and proportional Web Properties for which additional
data will be produced.
2. 	No later than February 24, 2026, the Parties are to meet and confer in accordance with
this Court’s standing order to address the issues identified above. Google must come to
the meet and confer with at least one technical proposal to further refine the use of Health
Verticals to identify additional relevant websites. If Plaintiffs have sufficient information
from Google’s productions thus far to propose further refinement, they must do so. No
proposal will be presented as a “black box.” Both sides must be prepared to explain their
proposals at a sufficient level of detail that the other understands the selection criteria. The
Protective Order in place in this action provides a sufficient protection for an informative
discussion.
Case 3:23-cv-02431-VC Document 266 Filed 02/17/26 Page 3 of 4

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
3. 	No later than March 3, 2026, the Parties are to provide the Court with a status report not
to exceed six pages indicating whether the dispute has been resolved, discussions are
continuing or outlining any remaining issue for the Court to resolve.
4. 	The Parties may agree to modest extensions of the deadlines above to facilitate resolution
without further Court intervention.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 17, 2026
SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:23-cv-02431-VC Document 266 Filed 02/17/26 Page 4 of 4