Case 3:21-cv-05227-JD Document 297 Filed 10/13/22 Page 1 of 18
`
`Brendan P. Glackin (SBN 199643)
`Lauren M. Weinstein (pro hac vice)
`bglackin@agutah.gov
`lweinstein@agutah.gov
`OFFICE OF THE UTAH ATTORNEY
`GENERAL
`160 E 300 S, 5th Floor
`PO Box 140872
`Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0872
`Telephone: (801) 366-0260
`
`Counsel for the Plaintiff States
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Karma M. Giulianelli (SBN 184175)
`karma.giulianelli@bartlitbeck.com
`BARTLIT BECK LLP
`1801 Wewetta St., Suite 1200
`Denver, Colorado 80202
`Telephone: (303) 592-3100
`
`Hae Sung Nam (pro hac vice)
`hnam@kaplanfox.com
`KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
`850 Third Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`Telephone: (212) 687-1980
`
`Co-Lead Counsel for the Proposed Class in In re
`Google Play Consumer Antitrust Litigation
`
`Paul J. Riehle (SBN 115199)
`paul.riehle@faegredrinker.com
`FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH
`LLP
`Four Embarcadero Center, 27th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 591-7500
`
`Christine A. Varney (pro hac vice)
`cvarney@cravath.com
`CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
`825 Eighth Avenue
`New York, New York 10019
`Telephone: (212) 474-1000
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Epic Games, Inc. in Epic
`Games, Inc. v. Google LLC et al.
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, i
`Case Nos. 3:21-md-02981-JD; 3:20-cv-05671-JD; 3:20-cv-05761-JD; 3:21-cv-05227-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-05227-JD Document 297 Filed 10/13/22 Page 2 of 18
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`IN RE GOOGLE PLAY STORE
`ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
`
`Epic Games Inc. v. Google LLC et al.,
`Case No. 3:20-cv-05671-JD
`
`In re Google Play Consumer Antitrust
`Litigation, Case No. 3:20-cv-05761-JD
`
`State of Utah et al. v. Google LLC et al.,
`Case No. 3:21-cv-05227-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:21-md-02981-JD
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION
`AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, AND
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
`THEREOF
`
`
`Judge: Hon. James Donato
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, ii
`Case Nos. 3:21-md-02981-JD; 3:20-cv-05671-JD; 3:20-cv-05761-JD; 3:21-cv-05227-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-05227-JD Document 297 Filed 10/13/22 Page 3 of 18
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION TO ALL PARTIES HEREIN
`AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the October 5, 2022 Order in this litigation by
`the Honorable James Donato, Dkt. 340, Plaintiffs will and hereby do move this Court pursuant to
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e)(2) for an adverse inference instruction based on Defendants
`Google LLC, Google Ireland Limited, Google Commerce Limited, Google Asia Pacific Pte.
`Limited and Google Payment Corp.’s (collectively, “Google”) spoliation of evidence in the above-
`captioned action (the “Action”), or in the alternative for sanctions to cure Plaintiffs’ prejudice
`under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e)(1). This motion is based upon this Notice of Motion,
`the Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed herewith, the Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs’
`Motion for Sanctions, the Declaration of Lee M. Mason (the “LMM Decl.”), all matters with
`respect to which this Court may take judicial notice, and such oral and documentary evidence as
`properly may be presented to the Court.
`RELIEF SOUGHT
`Plaintiffs request that the Court issue adverse inference jury instructions to remedy
`Google’s spoliation of Google Chats as provided by Rule 37(e)(2)(B). In the alternative, Plaintiffs
`request that the Court issue a curative jury instruction consistent with Rule 37(e)(1).
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, i
`Case Nos. 3:21-md-02981-JD; 3:20-cv-05671-JD; 3:20-cv-05761-JD; 3:21-cv-05227-JD
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-05227-JD Document 297 Filed 10/13/22 Page 4 of 18
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iii 
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ..............................................................................................................1 
`A. 
`Google Failed to Preserve Employees’ Google Chats. ............................................1 
`B. 
`Google Destroyed Substantive Information. ............................................................2 
`C. 
`History of the Dispute. .............................................................................................4 
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................5 
`A. 
`Google Spoliated Evidence by Deleting Google Chats. ..........................................5 
`B. 
`Google Intentionally Deprived Plaintiffs of Google Chats. .....................................7 
`C. 
`Plaintiffs Have Been Prejudiced by Google’s Spoliation. .......................................8 
`D. 
`Remedy ..................................................................................................................10 
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................10 
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, ii
`Case Nos. 3:21-md-02981-JD; 3:20-cv-05671-JD; 3:20-cv-05761-JD; 3:21-cv-05227-JD
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-05227-JD Document 297 Filed 10/13/22 Page 5 of 18
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`881 F. Supp. 2d 1132 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ...........................................................................6, 7, 10
`Capricorn Mgmt. Sys., Inc. v. Gov't Emps. Ins.,
`2020 WL 1242616 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2020) ...........................................................................7
`CAT3, LLC v. Black Lineage, Inc.,
`164 F. Supp. 3d 488 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) ........................................................................................9
`Chinitz v. Intero Real Est. Servs.,
`2020 WL 7389417 (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2020) ...........................................................................6
`Colonies Partners, L.P. v. Cty. Of San Bernardino,
`2020 WL 1496444 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2020)............................................................................7
`DR Distribs, LLC v. 21 Century Smoking, Inc.,
`513 F. Supp. 3d 839 (N.D. Ill. 2021) .....................................................................................6, 8
`Fast v. GoDaddy.com LLC,
`2022 WL 325708 (D. Ariz. Feb. 3, 2022) ..................................................................................7
`Glaukos Corp. v. Ivantis, Inc.,
`2020 WL 10501850 (C.D. Cal. June 17, 2020) .........................................................................7
`John v. County of Lake,
`2020 WL 3630391 (N.D. Cal. July 3, 2020) ............................................................................10
`Lokai Holdings LLC v. Twin Tiger USA LLC,
`2018 WL 1512055 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2018) ...........................................................................9
`Matthew Enter., Inc. v. Chrysler Grp. LLC,
`2016 WL 2957133 (N.D. Cal. May 23, 2016) ...........................................................................9
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Google Inc.,
`2014 WL 580290 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2014) .............................................................................8
`WeRide Corp. v. Kun Huang,
`2020 WL 1967209 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2020) ...........................................................................7
`Statutes & Rules
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 37....................................................................................................................passim
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, iii
`Case Nos. 3:21-md-02981-JD; 3:20-cv-05671-JD; 3:20-cv-05761-JD; 3:21-cv-05227-JD
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-05227-JD Document 297 Filed 10/13/22 Page 6 of 18
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`Plaintiffs bring this motion because Google has destroyed—irretrievably—an unknown but
`
`undoubtedly significant number of communications by its employees about relevant business
`conversations, including on topics at the core of this litigation. Google permanently deletes
`Google Chats1 every 24 hours—and did so even after this litigation commenced, after Plaintiffs
`repeatedly inquired about why those chats were missing from Google’s productions, and after
`Plaintiffs submitted a proffer on this exact issue at the Court’s direction.
`Google blames its systematic spoliation of relevant evidence on an enterprise default
`setting for Google Chats that is set to “history off,” but that is no excuse. Any administrator of
`Google Chats—an application developed by Google—could have changed this default setting at
`any point for all custodians. Google has never claimed otherwise. But Google chose not to change
`the setting. It also chose to do nothing to ensure that its custodians changed this default setting on
`their own workstations.
`Google’s failure to comply with its preservation obligations has prejudiced Plaintiffs and
`is sanctionable under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(e)(1) and 37(e)(2). Accordingly,
`Plaintiffs respectfully request (i) that the Court “instruct the jury that it may or must presume the
`information was unfavorable” to Google, under Rule 37(e)(2)(B), or, in the alternative, (ii) that the
`Court instruct the jury as to the circumstances of Google’s spoliation under Rule 37(e)(1).
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`A.
`Google Failed to Preserve Employees’ Google Chats.
`Epic filed the first complaint in this MDL on August 13, 2020. On September 11, 2020,
`Google acknowledged that it was under an obligation to preserve evidence that could be relevant
`to the litigation by issuing an initial litigation hold notice. (LMM Decl., Ex. 1 (2021.11.11 Letter
`from B. Rocca to L. Moskowitz) at 3.)
`
`
`1 To Plaintiffs’ knowledge, Google has employed different instant messaging platforms over time,
`including Google Hangouts, Google Meet, and, most recently, Google Chat. Plaintiffs refer to
`these platforms collectively as “Google Chats” or “Chats.”
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, 1
`Case Nos. 3:21-md-02981-JD; 3:20-cv-05671-JD; 3:20-cv-05761-JD; 3:21-cv-05227-JD
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-05227-JD Document 297 Filed 10/13/22 Page 7 of 18
`Case 3:21-cv-05227-JD Document 297 Filed 10/13/22 Page 7 of 18
`
`Policy
`
`Consistent with its legal obligations to preserve documents, Google’s Chat Retention
`
`
`
`
`Administrative Help page for Google Chats also states that administrators “
`
` (Id. at Ex. A.)? Google’s
`
`
`” (Ud. at Ex. B.) Google, however, has not
`
`preserved Google Chats for any custodians, automatically or otherwise.
`
`Google Destroyed Substantive Information.
`
`Google’s failure to retain Google Chats caused the destruction of substantive, relevant
`
`information. Discovery and deposition testimony confirms that Google employees use Google
`
`Chats on a daily or neardaily basis, often for sensitive business communications. Google argues
`»”
`
`that Chats are “generally non-substantive.
`
`
` Dkt. 258 at 10.) But that means someare substantive,
`and Google has already conceded that
` (LMM Decl., Ex. 2 (Defendants’ Responses and
`
`Objections to Plaintiffs’ Document Preservation Interrogatories) at 11.) Moreover, virtually every
`
`Google witness asked about the topic confirmed the pervasive use of Google Chats—and Google’s
`
`failure to take sufficient steps to preserve those Chats. For example:
`
`e
`
`Jamie Rosenberg, VP of Strategy &
`
`Operations for Platforms & Ecosystems, used
`
`(LMM Decl., Ex. 3 (Rosenberg Dep. 127:3-8; 128:17-
`
`129:16).)
`
`.
`
`Tian Lim, VP of User Experience and Product Management, testified that Google
`
`21
`
`employees use Google Chat ”—and in his_case ‘‘
`
`
`
`
`communicate‘
`2? Mr. Lim
`
`22
`Id., Ex. 4 (Lim Dep. 446:20-23; 447:7-448:20; 459:5-7).)
`
`Justin Mattson, Senior Software— usesHO
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`Michael Marchak,Director of Play Partnerships, Strategy & Operations, used ‘
`
`. Ud., Ex. 5 (Marchak Dep. 31:4-24, 32:4-11).)
`
`e
`
`
`
`28
`
`? All emphasis in quotations have been added.
`PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS,2
`
`Case Nos. 3:21-md-02981-JD; 3:20-cv-05671-JD: 3:20-cv-05761-JD; 3:21-cv-05227-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-05227-JD Document 297 Filed 10/13/22 Page 8 of 18
`
`
`
`
`(Id., Ex. 6 (Mattson Dep.
`200:20-21; 201:11-21; 201:24-202:4; 202:20- 203:3; 205:17-22).)
`
`
`
`The few Google Chats that Google did produceinthis litigation contain substantive post-
`
`
`
`litigation discussions of topics at the heart of the case, including:
`
`(id.. Ex. 7 (GOOG-PLAY-005576717)); the
`
`
`
`id., Ex. 9 (GOOG-PLAY-003930716)). Google employees also regularly
`
`communicate by Chat with business
`
`
`010510806)): and
`
`matters such as
`
`id
`
`&
`
`bout relevant
`
`Ud., Ex. 10 (GOOG-PLAY-
`
`
`
`_—
`
`N W
`
`w a N
`
`n
`
`nN
`
`—l
`
`oo
`
`\O
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`007213451); id., Ex. 11 (Pimplapure Dep. 363:10-364:4).)
`
`Google Chat has robust features that facilitate substantive conversations about Google
`
`employees’ work. The few Google Chats that have been produced show employees using Google
`
`Chat features such as screen capturing andlink sharing to (1) discuss edits to relevant documents,
`
`_ e.g., id., Ex. 12 (GOOG-PLAY-005601967) (Chats regarding
`(11) share and discuss relevant screenshots from other Chats, (see, e.g., id., Ex. 13 (GOOG-
`PLAY-00761 1604)at -605); (ii1) collaborate on meeting summaries, (see, e.g., id., Ex. 14 (GOOG-
`PLAY-000353866) (Chatregardingne, and(iv)askquestionsaboutdraft
`
`
`presentations on issues central to this case.
`(/d., Ex. 15 (GOOG-PLAY-007873896) (Chat
`
`
`)
`regarding edits to a presentation about
`Moreover, Google intentionally diverted sensitive communications to Chat, with the
`
`understanding that those Chats would be expunged daily. For example, in a February 2020 Chat
`
`between Paul Bankhead and others about
`
`participant asked,
`
`
`
`should “
`
`Ud., Ex. 16 (GOOG-
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, 3
`
`Case Nos. 3:21-md-02981-JD; 3:20-cv-05671-JD; 3:20-cv-05761-JD; 3:21-cv-05227-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-05227-JD Document 297 Filed 10/13/22 Page 9 of 18
`
`PLAY-003929257) at -257-58; see_also id., Ex. 17 GOOG-PLAY-010510815 (Chat from Mr.
`
`).) Samat reminding his colleague to “
`
`Cc.
`
`History of the Dispute.
`
`Asdiscovery progressedin this case, Plaintiffs noticed a glaring absence of Google Chats
`
`in Google’s productions. Plaintiffs first raised this issue in an April 22, 2021 letter, noting that “to
`
`date, Plaintiffs have seen no Instant Messages|] in Google’s productions.” (LMM Decl., Ex. 18
`
`(2021.04.22 Letter from M. Coolidge to M. Naranjo) at 4.)
`
`In August 2021, four months after
`
`Plaintiffs’ initial letter on this topic, Google finally responded, stating that, in the normal course,
`
`Google Chats automatically delete after 24 hours, so Google did not expect to produce a significant
`
`numberof additional Chats pre-dating the litigation—implying (contrary to fact) that Google
`
`Chats post-dating the litigation were preserved and would be produced.
`
`(LMM Decl., Ex. 19
`
`(2021.08.13 Letter from B. Rocca to L. Moskowitz) at 5.)
`
`However, Google did not produce additional Chats.
`
`In November 2021, after continued
`
`follow-up by Plaintiffs, Google for the first time revealed that it still was not preserving Chats,
`
`stating inexplicably that Google‘
`
`
`
`” and that‘
`
`> (LMM
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`Decl., Ex. 1 (2021.11.11 Letter from B. Rocca to L. Moskowitz) at3.)
`
`On January 14, 2022.
`
`Google confirmedthat “
`
`MM De
`
`in response_to additional interrogatories ordered by
`
`this Court,
`
`24
`
`acknowledged that
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, 4
`
`Case Nos. 3:21-md-02981-JD; 3:20-cv-05671-JD; 3:20-cv-05761-JD; 3:21-cv-05227-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-05227-JD Document 297 Filed 10/13/22 Page 10 of 18
`Case 3:21-cv-05227-JD Document 297 Filed 10/13/22 Page 10 of 18
`
` 7 at a minimum,
`
`Plaintiffs raised Google’s failure to preserve Google Chats with the Court at
`
`the
`
`December 16, 2021 and May 12, 2022 Case Management Conferences.
`
`Per the Court’s
`
`instruction, the Parties met and conferred regarding Plaintiffs’ forthcoming motion for Rule 37
`
`sanctions on May 13, 2022. Google confirmed that, as of that ttme—nearly two years after the
`
`litigation commenced and overa year since the issue wasfirst raised by Plaintiffs—Google still
`
`had not taken the most basic steps to preserve Google Chats,as it still had not turned “history on”
`
`for Google Chats or instructed individual custodians to do so manually. Asinstructed by the Court,
`
`the Parties jointly filed a proposed method ofresolution and Plaintiffs’ proffer on May 27, 2022.
`
`On October 5, 2022, the Court directed briefing.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Google breached its duty to preserve relevant Chats and must be held accountable for
`
`prejudicing Plaintiffs. A party may be sanctioned “[i]f electronically stored information [(“ESTI’)]
`
`that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conductoflitigation is lost because a party
`
`failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it, and it cannot be restored or replaced through
`
`additional discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e). “[U]pon finding prejudice. .
`
`. [the court] may order
`
`measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(1). If a court
`
`determinesthat a party “acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in
`
`the litigation,” it may “instruct the jury that it may or must presume the mformation was
`
`unfavorable to the party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(2)(B). Google’s conduct, which persists today,
`
`was willful and prejudicial. An adverse instruction is therefore an appropriate remedy. At
`
`minimum, a curative jury instruction is warranted under Rule 37(e)(1).
`
`A.
`
`Google Spoliated Evidence by Deleting Google Chats.
`
`In determining whether spoliation has occurred, courts consider under Rule 37(e):
`
`“(1) [w]hether the information qualifies as ESI; (2) whether the ESIis lost and cannotbe restored
`
`or replaced through additional discovery; (3) whether the ESI should have been preserved in the
`PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS,5
`
`Case Nos. 3:21-md-02981-JD; 3:20-cv-05671-JD: 3:20-cv-05761-JD; 3:21-cv-05227-JD
`
`_ N W
`
`w > N
`
`n
`
`nN
`
`— o
`
`o
`
`\o
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-05227-JD Document 297 Filed 10/13/22 Page 11 of 18
`Case 3:21-cv-05227-JD Document 297 Filed 10/13/22 Page 11 of 18
`
`anticipation or conductoflitigation; and (4) whether the respondingparty failed to take reasonable
`
`steps to preserve the ESI.” Chinitz v. Intero Real Est. Servs., 2020 WL 7389417, at *3 (N.D.Cal.
`
`May13, 2020). There is no reasonable dispute on the first three factors: (1) Google Chats are ESI,
`
`(2) Google admits the deleted Chats cannot be restored (LMM Decl., Ex. 2 at 21); and (3) Google’s
`
`duty to preserve arose no later than when Epicfiled its complaint, see Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs.
`
`Co., 881 F. Supp. 2d 1132, 1136 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (“The common law imposesthe obligation to
`
`preserve evidence from the momentthat litigation is reasonably anticipated.”).
`
`While Google disputes the fourth factor, Dkt. 258 at 8, the evidence makes clear that
`
`Google did not take reasonable steps to preserve Google Chats. Google had an off-switch and
`
`(LMM Decl., Ex. 2 at 18), Google could have switched the default
`
`chosenottouseit. InsteadofleavingtheFC acrossthe
`
`
`
`
`
`settings to
`
`“{D]isabling an autodeletion function is universally understood to be one
`
`of the most basic and simple functions a party must do to preserve ESI.” DR Distribs, LLC v. 21
`
`Century Smoking, Inc., 513 F. Supp. 3d 839, 977-79 (N.D. Ill. 2021). Google chose not to switch
`
`the default settings, in violation of its preservation obligations. See id. (holding defendants
`
`violated preservation obligations by not disabling auto-delete of Yahoo! Chats). Google’s
`
`instruction to employees to preserve its Chats does not help
`
`its argument. Google’s
`
`policy
`
`told
`
` employees subject to a legal hold that
`
`
`
`which did not happen because Google did not changeits default settings. Google
`
`then did nothing to ensure custodians preserved their chats, knowing that it had not changedits
`
`default settings.
`
`(LMM Decl., Ex. 1 at Ex. A.) Those are not reasonable steps to preserve ESI.
`
`See Apple, 881 F. Supp. 2d at 1147.
`
`Atleast one court in this district has found such conductto violate preservation obligations.
`
`In Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Samsung’s internal email system auto-deleted emails after
`
`two weeks; employees using the system could manually adjust this default setting by clicking to
`
`save emails before the deletion period. 881 F. Supp. 2d at 1139-40. Samsung’s litigation hold
`
`instructed its employees to preserve relevant documents, but Samsung failed to “build{] itself an
`
`off-switch—and us[e] it” to prevent auto-deletion. Jd. at 1134. And Samsung,like Google, did
`PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS,6
`
`Case Nos. 3:21-md-02981-JD; 3:20-cv-05671-JD: 3:20-cv-05761-JD; 3:21-cv-05227-JD
`
`
`
`— N W
`
`w > N
`
`n
`
`nN
`
`— o
`
`o
`
`\o
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-05227-JD Document 297 Filed 10/13/22 Page 12 of 18
`
`
`
`not “verify whether its employees were actually complying” with the preservation obligation. Id.
`at 1143-44, 1147. The court therefore held that Samsung “conscious[ly] disregard[ed]” its duty
`and issued an adverse jury instruction as a sanction. Id. at 1147, 1150-51. As the court put it,
`defendants cannot “leave in place an adjudicated spoliation tool and . . . take almost no steps to
`avoid spoliation beyond telling employees not to allow what will otherwise certainly happen.” Id.
`at 1151.
`
`B.
`Google Intentionally Deprived Plaintiffs of Google Chats.
`Google’s document destruction was intentional. A party’s conduct satisfies Rule 37(e)(2)’s
`intent requirement when “it is reasonable to infer, that [] a party purposefully destroyed evidence
`to avoid its litigation obligations.” WeRide Corp. v. Kun Huang, 2020 WL 1967209, at *12 (N.D.
`Cal. Apr. 24, 2020). “[A] court can find such intent from circumstantial evidence.” Fast v.
`GoDaddy.com LLC, 2022 WL 325708, at *7 (D. Ariz. Feb. 3, 2022). “Intent may be inferred if a
`party is on notice that documents were potentially relevant and fails to take measures to preserve
`relevant evidence[.]” Colonies Partners, L.P. v. Cty. Of San Bernardino, 2020 WL 1496444, at
`*9 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2020).
`Courts have held the failure to preserve by disabling auto-delete functionality—exactly
`what Google has done here—satisfies the intent requirement of Rule 37(e)(2). See, e.g., Glaukos
`Corp. v. Ivantis, Inc., 2020 WL 10501850, at *6 (C.D. Cal. June 17, 2020); WeRide Corp., 2020
`WL 1967209, at *15-16. Google’s misconduct goes beyond that: Google concealed from Plaintiffs
`its systematic destruction of documents for months, until instructed to respond to Court-ordered
`interrogatories. Even then, and to this day, Google did not stop the improper deletion of Google
`Chats from its custodians’ files.
`Finally, “[t]he court should be sensitive to the party’s sophistication with regard to
`litigation in evaluating preservation efforts.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 Advisory Comm. Notes to 2015
`Amendment of Subdivision (e); see Capricorn Mgmt. Sys., Inc. v. Gov’t Emps. Ins., 2019 WL
`5694256, at *10 (E.D.N.Y. July 22, 2019), adopted, 2020 WL 1242616 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2020)
`(noting that higher preservation standards apply to a “large corporation with greater resources”).
`It is difficult to imagine a litigant better situated to prevent automatic deletion on its own platforms
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, 7
`Case Nos. 3:21-md-02981-JD; 3:20-cv-05671-JD; 3:20-cv-05761-JD; 3:21-cv-05227-JD
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-05227-JD Document 297 Filed 10/13/22 Page 13 of 18
`
`
`
`than Google. When Google, whose stated mission is to “organize the world’s information and
`make it accessible,” irretrievably destroys information despite multiple warnings, its conduct is
`intentional.
`
`C.
`Plaintiffs Have Been Prejudiced by Google’s Spoliation.
`Rule 37(e)(1) permits sanctions where a party’s preservation failures caused “prejudice to
`another party from the loss of information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(1). Google’s destruction
`prejudices Plaintiffs by depriving them of nearly all Google Chats from Google employees.
`Direct evidence of the contents of lost ESI is rare, and even when present likely understates
`the full scope of the lost ESI. Courts thus consider circumstantial evidence to determine the extent
`of prejudice suffered and an appropriate remedy. See DR Distribs., 513 F. Supp. 3d at 982. Rule
`37 sanctions may therefore be awarded where the spoliated evidence could have supported the
`movant’s case. See PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Google Inc., 2014 WL 580290, at *4 (N.D. Cal.
`Feb. 13, 2014) (“[A] party must only come forward with plausible, concrete suggestions as to what
`the destroyed evidence might have been before a heavy burden shifts to the spoliating party to
`show a lack of prejudice”).
`Rule 37(e)(1) “does not place a burden of proving or disproving prejudice on one party or
`the other,” instead leaving “judges with discretion to determine how best to assess prejudice.” Fed.
`R. Civ. P. 37 Advisory Comm. Notes to 2015 Amendment of Subdivision (e). The evidence
`available here is sufficient to establish prejudice. This case is about ongoing conduct, and
`Google’s actions in the relevant markets after its preservation obligations arose—no later than
`August 2020—are the subject of core disputes in this case. For example, Google and its experts
`have relied on its service fee reductions in 2021 and ongoing discussions about
`to oppose class certification in the consumer case. (E.g. Dkt. 273 at 16-21.)
`Plaintiffs expect those facts to figure prominently in Google’s merits expert analysis as well.
`Google Chats on these issues are central to Plaintiffs’ case and Google’s defenses.
`The limited production of Google Chats confirms that Google employees provide some of
`their most honest assessments of the Play Store and its business in Google Chats. See, e.g., LMM
`Decl., Ex. 20 (GOOG-PLAY-002384214) (Chat concerning
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, 8
`Case Nos. 3:21-md-02981-JD; 3:20-cv-05671-JD; 3:20-cv-05761-JD; 3:21-cv-05227-JD
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-05227-JD Document 297 Filed 10/13/22 Page 14 of 18
`Case 3:21-cv-05227-JD Document 297 Filed 10/13/22 Page 14 of 18
`
`; id., Ex. 12 (GOOG-PLAY-005601967)
`
`(Chat in which David Kleidermacher, Google’s
`
`about which a Google employee noted,
`
`
`
`
`
`7_iforAndroid
`
`Google employees also use Google Chats to have candid conversations that undermine
`
`Google’s claims. For example, Plaintiffs allege that Google illegally coerces developers to use
`
`Google’s inferior and overpriced payment solution, GPB for digital in-app sales, while Google
`
`claims GPB provides value to developers. Chats between Google employees show that Google’s
`
`own employeespO In a Chat between two engineers at
`
`
`
`
`
`YouTube, one of Google’s most popular apps, Eric Chu (Director of So
`
`
`
`YouTube) warns Prachi Gupta (Senior Director, Engineering, YouTube)
`
`that
`
`(LMM Decl., Ex. 21 (GOOG-PLAY-003600814) at -816.) Google’s
`
`failure to preserve Chats therefore likely denied Plaintiffs access to some of the most damning
`
`documents concerning Google’s core arguments and defenses. See Matthew Enter., Inc. v.
`
`Chrysler Grp. LLC, 2016 WL 2957133, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 23, 2016) (finding prejudice when
`
`parties lose the opportunity to use communicationsthat “could have been probative.”’)
`
`Finally, contrary to Google’s argument,
`
`(Dkt. 258 at 11),
`
`its production of other
`
`communications, such as e-mail correspondence, does not negate the prejudice to Plaintiffs in this
`
`case.
`
`In Lokai Holdings LLC v. Twin Tiger USA LLC, defendants deleted emails after being
`
`advised to preserve relevant emails, due to storage concerns. 2018 WL 1512055, at *2 (S.D.N-Y.
`
`Mar. 12, 2018). The court found that while the plaintiff could adequately prosecute its claims with
`
`the documents the defendants had produced, defendants’ destruction of relevant emails “limited
`
`the universe of documents available for .
`
`.
`
`. use in this litigation” in support of its claims,” id. at
`
`12, and therefore was prejudicial. Jd. at *15; see also CAT3, LLC v. Black Lineage, Inc., 164 F.
`
`Supp. 3d 488, 497 (S.D.N-Y. 2016) (“Plaintiff’s case .
`
`.
`
`. is weaker whenit cannot present the
`
`overwhelming quantity of evidenceit otherwise would have[.]”). Here, Google deleted Chats from
`PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, 9
`
`Case Nos. 3:21-md-02981-JD; 3:20-cv-05671-JD:; 3:20-cv-05761-JD: 3:21-cv-05227-JD
`
`
`
`— N W
`
`w > N
`
`n
`
`nN
`
`— o
`
`o
`
`\o
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-05227-JD Document 297 Filed 10/13/22 Page 15 of 18
`
`
`
`dozens of custodians, and the evidence shows that there were deleted Chats that likely supported
`Plaintiffs’ claims. That is more than enough to show prejudice.
`D.
`Remedy
`Having established Google’s spoliation and its intent to deprive Plaintiffs of the use of
`Google Chats in this litigation, Plaintiffs submit that the remedies enumerated in Rule 37(e)(2) are
`appropriate here, including the remedy of “instruct[ing] the jury that it may or must presume the
`information was unfavorable to the party”. Fed. R. Civ. P 37(e)(2)(B); see also John v. County of
`Lake, 2020 WL 3630391, at *7 (N.D. Cal. July 3, 2020) (ordering adverse inference instruction).
`In Apple, the Court granted Apple’s motion for sanctions against Samsung after finding that
`Samsung’s preservation efforts failed and that Samsung “kept the shredder on long after it should
`have known about the litigation, and simply trusted its custodial employees to save relevant
`evidence from it.” Apple, 881 F. Supp. 2d at 1150-1151. Google, like Samsung, did not properly
`fulfil its preservation duty and as such, Plaintiffs respectfully submit that the proper remedy here
`is an instruction that (1) Google had a discovery obligation to maintain Google Chats no later than
`August 13, 2020; (2) Google had a mechanism to do so; (3) Google failed to implement that
`mechanism; (4) Google automatically deleted relevant Google Chats for each custodian in this
`case; (5) this destruction prevented Plaintiffs and the jury from learning the contents of those
`Google Chats; and (6) the jury should assume that the information Google had destroyed would
`have supported Plaintiffs’ claims against Google. In the alternative, having satisfied the elements
`of Rule 37(e)(1), Plaintiffs ask the Court to provide the jury with instruction (1) through (5) above.
`CONCLUSION
`Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court issue adverse inference jury instructions to
`remedy Google’s spoliation of Google Chats as provided by Rule 37(e)(2)(B). In the alternative,
`Plaintiffs request that the Court issue a curative jury instruction consistent with Rule 37(e)(1).
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, 10
`Case Nos. 3:21-md-02981-JD; 3:20-cv-05671-JD; 3:20-cv-05761-JD; 3:21-cv-05227-JD
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-05227-JD Document 297 Filed 10/13/22 Page 16 of 18
`
`
`
`Dated: October 13, 2022
`
`BARTLIT BECK LLP
` Karma M. Giulianelli
`
`KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
`Hae Sung Nam
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Karma M. Giulianelli
`Karma M. Giulianelli
`
`Co-Lead Counsel for the Proposed Class in In
`re Google Play Consumer Antitrust Litigation
`
`
`
`PRITZKER LEVINE LLP
`Elizabeth C. Pritzker
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Elizabeth C. Pritzker
`Elizabeth C. Pritzker
`
`Liaison C