Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03649/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03649-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 In his declaration, Schulman states, inter alia, “Recognizing that the daily budget is an

advertiser’s target, as opposed to its maximum, daily advertising spending, the AdWords system was

designed to average out natural fluctuations in daily charges by permitting accrual of charges up to

120% of the daily budget in a day if it is necessary to offset prior shortfalls within that monthly

billing period.” (Declaration of Michael Schulman ¶ 9, Docket Item No. 88.)

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CLRB Hanson Industries, LLC d/b/a Industrial

Printing, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

 v.

Google Inc.,

Defendant. /

NO. C 05-03649 JW 

ORDER FOLLOWING HEARING ON

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE

ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY

ADJUDICATION

On January 22, 2007, the Court conducted a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial

Summary Judgment and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (See Docket Item Nos. 80,

85.) During the hearing, Defendant’s counsel referred to the declaration of Michael Schulman

(“Schulman”), a Google engineer, as evidence of how Google’s AdWords system compensates for

fluctuations in Internet traffic over a period of time.1

 Plaintiffs’ counsel indicated that they had not

have an opportunity to take Schulman’s deposition, or the deposition of any other Google employee

with knowledge of how the AdWords system delivers advertisements.

Presently, there is insufficient evidence describing how the AdWords system accounts for

fluctuations in Internet traffic and offsets prior shortfalls in advertising hits. For instance, there is

Case 5:05-cv-03649-JW Document 111 Filed 02/08/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 2

insufficient evidence in the record establishing that overdelivery by up to 120 percent will actually

occur on the first day that an advertising campaign is commenced.

Accordingly, Defendant is ORDERED to deliver Michael Schulman for deposition by

Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs shall also be permitted to depose one to two additional Google employees with

knowledge of how the AdWords system compensates for fluctuations in Internet traffic. The

depositions will occur within thirty days of this Order. The Court continues the hearing on

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

to April 2, 2007 at 9 AM. The parties will comply with the Local Rules for supplemental briefing,

if any.

Dated: February 8, 2007 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-03649-JW Document 111 Filed 02/08/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Christopher M. Jhang cjhang@perkinscoie.com

David T. Biderman dbiderman@perkinscoie.com

Judith B. Gitterman gittj@perkinscoie.com

Lester L Levy llevy@wolfpopper.com

Lisa Delehunt ldelehunt@perkinscoie.com

Michele Fried Raphael mraphael@wolfpopper.com

Ryan M. Hagan rhagan@alexanderlaw.com

William M. Audet waudet@alexanderlaw.com

Dated: February 8, 2007 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:05-cv-03649-JW Document 111 Filed 02/08/07 Page 3 of 3