Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02329/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02329-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

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

FREE RANGE CONTENT, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GOOGLE INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.14-cv-02329-BLF (HRL)

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

JOINT REPORT #1

Re: Dkt. No. 132

The parties have agreed to all but one term in a Stipulated Protective Order. They request 

that the court resolve their dispute over which language from the court’s model protective order 

for litigation involving patents, highly sensitive confidential information and/or trade secrets (“the 

model order”) should apply to the disclosure of another party’s Highly Confidential—Attorneys’ 

Eyes Only (“Highly Confidential”) information to an expert or consultant. Plaintiff Free Range 

Content, Inc. (“Free Range”) argues that the language in footnote 7 of the model order should 

govern, while defendant Google, Inc. (“Google”) argues that Section 7.4(a)(2) of the model order 

should apply.

Footnote seven of the model order allows disclosure of Highly Confidential information to 

a non-testifying expert without revealing the expert’s identity to the designating party “as long as 

the Expert is not a current officer, director, or employee of a competitor of a Party or anticipated to 

become one.” Model Order, n. 7. In contrast, Section 7.4(a)(2) requires the party seeking to 

disclose highly confidential information to a non-testifying expert to first reveal the expert’s name, 

resume, employer, and clients, among other information, and allows the designating party an 

Case 5:14-cv-02329-BLF Document 133 Filed 10/11/16 Page 1 of 5
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

opportunity to object.

Background

This is a potential class action suit regarding Google’s AdSense program. In this program, 

Google sells advertising space to third-party advertisers, and AdSense program participants like 

Free Range publish the ads Google sends them. The advertisers pay Google, and Google pays the 

publishers, based on the traffic their sites generate for the advertisers. Dkt. No. 132, p. 1. This 

lawsuit concerns plaintiffs’ allegations that Google withheld unpaid earnings when it terminated 

their AdSense accounts. Id.

Google employs a team to filter out “spam”—false clicks or views intended to fraudulently 

pull more money from advertisers for web traffic that does not exist. Dkt. No. 132, p. 7. In the 

present dispute, Google seeks the more protective language in the court’s model protective order 

to prevent competitors or spammers from learning about Google’s filters. Id. Google asserts that 

inadvertent disclosure of its filtering procedures would damage AdSense’s reputation and 

Google’s competitive advantage. Id.

Free Range argues that the identity of its consulting experts represents protected work 

product information that is not typically discoverable, and that Google has failed to make a 

sufficient showing to justify requiring disclosure. Dkt. No. 132, pp. 3-5. Additionally, Free 

Range offers a compromise, in which it will conduct a reasonable investigation into its consulting 

experts to ensure that they are not past, present, or anticipated future competitors of Google. Id. at 

p. 3.

Discussion

Upon a showing of good cause, the Court may “protect a party or person from annoyance, 

embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense” in discovery by “requiring that trade 

secret or other confidential . . . commercial information not be revealed, or be revealed only in a 

specified way.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G); Nygren et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. C07-

05793-JW (HRL), 2008 WL 2610558, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2008). Good cause generally 

requires the moving party to show that “specific prejudice or harm” will result absent a protective 

order. Kelora Systems, LLC v. Target Corp., No. C-11-01548 (LB), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

Case 5:14-cv-02329-BLF Document 133 Filed 10/11/16 Page 2 of 5
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

96724, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2011). The Northern District has approved and posted a model 

protective order to its website (http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/model-protective-orders). “[T]he 

court treats [its] model protective order as setting forth presumptively reasonable conditions 

regarding the treatment of highly confidential information.” Id. at *7.

Free Range argues that Google seeks to discover protected work product (the identities of 

consulting experts), and so Google must show “substantial need” for this information. Dkt. No. 

132, p. 4, citing Corley v. Google, Inc., 16-cv-00473-LHK (HRL), 2016 WL 3421402, at *3 (N.D. 

Cal. June 22, 2016). Free Range, relying on this court’s opinion in Corley v. Google, argues that 

Google fails to make such a showing, characterizing defendant’s concerns as “unexceptional” and 

“no more than the ordinary risks ‘inherent to the civil discovery of confidential information.’” 

Dkt. No. 132, at p. 5, quoting Corley, 2016 WL 3421402, at *3.

In Corley, however, defendant Google’s showing was particularly weak, and the plaintiffs 

made a showing of good cause. In that case, Google argued it needed to know the identities of 

consulting experts (1) to guard against harms the experts might inflict and (2) because Google is 

uniquely vulnerable to abuse of its confidential information as a result of its high profile and status 

as a frequent litigant.1 2016 WL 3421402 at *3. The court found these risks generic and

unpersuasive. Id. In contrast, the plaintiffs in Corley established good cause for preserving 

consulting experts’ anonymity by showing that they would have experienced significant difficulty 

hiring experts if their identities were disclosed. Id.

The court is persuaded that Corley is distinguishable here with respect to the showings of 

both the defendant and the plaintiffs. In the present case, Google argues that its spam filters and 

signals are the subjects of “more than a hundred thousand Google personnel hours” each year, and 

that spammers are “constantly” trying to find new ways of defeating Google’s defenses. Dkt. No. 

132, Lobel-Fried Decl. at ¶ 3. Google also specifically described the great pains it takes to ensure 

the secrecy of its filter information, both on a regular basis and in connection with the present 

litigation. Id. at ¶¶ 4, 7-8. These measures are necessary, Google asserts, to “maintain advertiser 

 

1

The court cited a third justification provided by Google, as well, but it is not relevant here.

Case 5:14-cv-02329-BLF Document 133 Filed 10/11/16 Page 3 of 5
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

trust” in its products and to guard against the negation of its filtering efforts should the 

information fall into the hands of bad actors. Id. at ¶¶ 5, 6. These allegations of specific prejudice 

or harm—that a bad actor with access to Google’s confidential information could undermine all of 

its described efforts—combined with the fact that Google is asking for a presumptively reasonable 

provision in the court’s model protective order, distinguishes Google’s showing from that made in 

Corley. Google here shows the substantial need for protection that was lacking in the earlier case.

Free Range, on the other hand, fails to show good cause for the (albeit presumptively 

reasonable) provision it requests. In contrast to the Corley plaintiffs’ showing that they would 

have trouble finding experts if the court adopted Google’s preferred provision, Free Range here 

asserts that (1) the parties are not competitors, (2) the provision Google requests exposes work 

product, (3) Google’s provision adds “needless delay and complexity,” and (4) “such a provision 

can be used strategically.” Dkt. No. 132, pp. 2-3. While the parties here are not competitors, this 

fact does not amount to a showing of good cause.

2

 The court is not persuaded by reasons 2 and 4, 

as the court surely took these risks into account when drafting the language of the model 

protective order that Google prefers, and Free Range makes no specific showing of prejudice or 

harm beyond reciting these concerns in general terms. Finally, Google’s compromise offers—to 

reduce its time to object to disclosure to an expert from 14 days to 4 business days and to half its 

time to oppose a motion for disclosure—mitigate Free Range’s concerns about needless delay.

Conclusion

The court is persuaded that Google has succeeded and Free Range has failed to make the 

requisite showing justifying its preferred provision. The court instructs the parties to include the 

language from Section 7.4(a)(2) of the court’s model protective order in their stipulated protective 

order. Additionally, the court orders Google to reduce its time for objections to experts from 14 

days to 4 business days and to half its time to oppose motions for disclosure. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

2

Free Range cites a case in which the fact that the parties were not competitors persuaded the 

court, but in that case, the defendant did not provide any authority in which the parties were not

competitors to support its position. See Nygren v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. C07-05793-JW 

(HRL), 2008 WL 2610558, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2008).

Case 5:14-cv-02329-BLF Document 133 Filed 10/11/16 Page 4 of 5
5

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

Dated: 10/11/2016 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:14-cv-02329-BLF Document 133 Filed 10/11/16 Page 5 of 5