Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-md-02184/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-md-02184-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 The Court construes Plaintiff’s Motion as an objection to the Report and Recommendation

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENJAMIN JOFFE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

GOOGLE, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C10-md-02184 CRB

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

Now pending is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief of Nondispositive Pretrial Order of

Magistrate Judge (dkt. 120), in which Plaintiffs seek relief from Magistrate Judge MariaElena James’s Report and Recommendation (dkt. 119) about the appropriate process by

which to search the “Street View Data.”1

 Plaintiffs hope to find within the Street View Data

“a needle in the haystack”–evidence of Plaintiffs’ communications–which would help them

to demonstrate standing. See Joint Letter (dkt. 117) at 2. Judge James recommended that

this Court appoint a Special Master to conduct the search, and further recommended using

“Google’s Jurisdictional Discovery Proposal for selection of the special master, development

of protocol and depositing of information, and all related matters.” Report &

Recommendation at 4. Plaintiffs object to the Report & Recommendation, not in so far as it

recommends a Special Master (initially a point of contention, see Joint Letter at 1-3), but

Case 3:10-md-02184-CRB Document 121 Filed 09/19/14 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

 A protective order can address confidentiality concerns.

2

because, they argue, Google’s Jurisdictional Discovery Proposal: (1) improperly limits the

Special Master’s searches of the Street View Data to the point of inception; (2) does not

require “the Special Master to provide [Plaintiffs] with each search result to determine

whether any of their communications are among those returned by the search” in order to

“better formulate follow-up searches”; and (3) “improvidently allow[s] Google to participate

in the formulation of the searches.” Mot. at 1-2. 

Plaintiffs’ first two objections are well-founded. As this case was brought on behalf

of “[a]ll persons in the United States whose electronic communications sent or received on

wireless internet connections were intercepted by Defendant Google Street View vehicles,”

CAC (dkt. 54) ¶ 119 (emphasis added), the search should include not only each Plaintiff’s

network, from which communications might have been sent, but also any other network on

which Plaintiffs’ communications might have been received. In addition, Plaintiffs have

persuasively argued that the Street View Data is “not susceptible to a simple ‘keyword’

search,” and instead requires Plaintiffs “to study the data, review search results, and develop

new strategies based on what they find or what they learn about the data.” See Joint Letter at

2; Mot. at 4. Accordingly, the Court agrees that Plaintiffs should see the results of the

Special Master’s searches, in order to provide the Special Master with feedback to aid in

subsequent searches.2

The Court rejects Plaintiffs’ third objection at this time. Plaintiffs contend that

“Google has nothing constructive to add” to the Special Master’s search and that its input

“will only lead to delay, burden and interference with Plaintiffs’ ability to find their

intercepted communications.” Mot. at 5. If Plaintiffs’ predictions bear out, Plaintiffs may

raise this issue again with Judge James. In the meantime, the Court has every expectation

that the parties will work together to facilitate the Special Master’s task and to accomplish

the discovery this Court has ordered.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS IN PART the Report and

Recommendation, and ADOPTS IN PART Plaintiffs’ Proposed Order as amended (see

Case 3:10-md-02184-CRB Document 121 Filed 09/19/14 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

3

attached).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 19, 2014 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT

JUDGE

Case 3:10-md-02184-CRB Document 121 Filed 09/19/14 Page 3 of 3