throbber
Case 2:21-cv-00750-RSL Document 100 Filed 06/23/22 Page 1 of 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`KAELI GARNER, et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., et al.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Cause No. C21-0750RSL
`
`ORDER REGARDING
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO
`COMPEL
`
`
`
`This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery
`
`Responses.” Dkt. # 93. Plaintiffs served their first Requests for Production (“RFP Set 1”) on
`
`February 4, 2022. Defendants objected to a number of the requests, arguing, inter alia, that
`
`(a) the requests are overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent they seek documents from
`
`the period before June 2018, (b) the requests are overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and
`
`not proportional to the needs of the case to the extent they seek all documents and/or all
`
`communications, and (c) the use of the term “third parties” is argumentative, vague, ambiguous,
`
`and/or undefined. Plaintiffs request that the Court overrule these objections, arguing that they
`
`are inadequately stated and are being used to improperly curtail discovery. Defendants argue
`
`that the motion is procedurally defective, fails to discuss any particular request, and fails to
`
`identify the specific information plaintiffs seek to obtain.
`
`
`ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’
`MOTION TO COMPEL - 1
`
`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 2:21-cv-00750-RSL Document 100 Filed 06/23/22 Page 2 of 5
`
`
`
`
`
`Having reviewed the memoranda, declarations, and exhibits submitted by the parties, the
`
`Court finds as follows:
`
`A. Misrepresentations
`
`
`
`Defendants argue that the motion to compel should be denied because plaintiffs
`
`misrepresented the history of the dispute in their motion. Defendants offer no authority for the
`
`proposition that discovery should be denied as a sanction for a factual omission or misstatement.
`
`It is undisputed that the parties spent hours in conferences and have exchanged significant
`
`correspondence regarding RFP Set 1 and the responses thereto. The omission and misstatement
`
`defendants identify do not raise an inference that plaintiffs failed to meet and confer in good
`
`faith or otherwise justify an outright denial of their motion.
`
`B. Relevant Time Frame
`
`
`
`The discussions between the parties highlighted a disparity in what they each saw as the
`
`relevant time frame for purposes of RFP Set 1. Plaintiffs believe that documents from the year
`
`prior to the commercial release of the Alexa device will shed light on the device’s design
`
`features, its functionality, and the choices defendants made to safeguard or exploit their
`
`customer’s privacy and that documents from 2013 to the present will reveal how defendants’
`
`disclosures to the public have changed over time. Defendants, on the other hand, take the
`
`position that only documents created during the limitations period – which, they assert, began to
`
`run in June 2018 – need be produced. Through the meet and confer process, the parties reached
`
`an agreement that defendants would produce responsive documents from June 2018 to the
`
`
`ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’
`MOTION TO COMPEL - 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
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00750-RSL Document 100 Filed 06/23/22 Page 3 of 5
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`present, with plaintiffs reserving the right to expand the time frame “based on information
`
`revealed in later discovery [] and for specific requests where a broader definition may be
`
`necessary to capture relevant and responsive documents.” Dkt. # 96-2 at 3.
`
`
`
`In their motion, plaintiffs make no effort to show that discovery has revealed a need to
`
`expand the relevant time frame or that a complete response to a particular RFP requires such
`
`expansion. To the extent plaintiffs have changed their mind and now want responses to all RFPs
`
`from July 17, 2013, they have not met and conferred regarding the change. The Court will not
`
`compel production of earlier documents at this time.
`
`C. All Documents and/or Communications
`
`13
`
`
`
`The Court declines to rule on this issue in the abstract. While it may be entirely
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`appropriate to require defendants to produce each and every document and communication
`
`which they contend bound Alexa users to their terms of use/privacy policy (RFP No. 1), forcing
`
`defendants to produce all documents and communications relating to the amount defendants
`
`charge for the use of Alexa on third party devices (RFP No. 28) would appear to have no benefit
`
`over simply producing “documents sufficient to show” those amounts. Without some
`
`information regarding the need for a specific universe of documents, the magnitude of that
`
`universe, and the complexity/expense of production, the Court cannot determine whether a
`
`specific discovery request is proportional to the needs of the case.
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’
`MOTION TO COMPEL - 3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00750-RSL Document 100 Filed 06/23/22 Page 4 of 5
`
`
`
`D. Third Parties
`
`
`
`A number of the requests in RFP Set 1 seek the disclosure of documents or
`
`communications regarding, to, or from “third parties.” See RFP Nos. 9, 12, 13, 17, 26-31, 33,
`
`and 38-40. Defendants object to this phrase, asserting that it is vague, ambiguous, undefined,
`
`and argumentative in that it assumes without support that third parties had access to Alexa’s
`
`voice recordings.1 Defendants apparently take issue with any suggestion that they disclose voice
`
`recordings to outsiders, preferring to use the terms “employees” and “contractors” to describe
`
`those it allows to access the recordings. See Dkt. # 94 at 101-02 (“Amazon does not transfer to
`
`third parties or otherwise allow third parties to access customer Alexa voice recordings. Amazon
`
`only allows its own employees (and before early 2020, Amazon’s contractors) to access Alexa
`
`voice recordings, in addition to users who can access recordings in the Alexa Voice History.”).
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs argue that the ordinary meaning of “third party” should govern the RFP Set 1,
`
`such that defendants’ responses should disclose all documents and communications with any
`
`person outside of Amazon itself, including contractors. While this argument has some merit,
`
`plaintiffs fail to acknowledge that RFP Set 1 uses the terms “employees,” “contractors,” and
`
`“third parties” to mean different groups. See, e.g., RFP No. 17. If “third party” includes
`
`
`1 Defendants assert that they have not withheld any documents based on these objections (Dkt.
`# 95 at 13), but there is no declaration or other support for such an assertion. To the contrary, the
`correspondence between the parties suggests that defendants unilaterally defined “third parties” to
`exclude contractors and limited their production accordingly.
`
`ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’
`MOTION TO COMPEL - 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
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00750-RSL Document 100 Filed 06/23/22 Page 5 of 5
`
`
`
`contractors, as plaintiffs now argue, why would contractors be mentioned separately in some of
`
`the RFPs?
`
`
`
`Assuming, for purposes of this motion, that plaintiffs’ use of multiple terms for non-
`
`employees created the ambiguity of which defendants complain, the parties could have and
`
`should have resolved any such confusion during the meet and confer process. At this point, if
`
`defendants continue to refuse to produce information regarding their contractors where only the
`
`phrase “third party” is used, plaintiffs may amend RFP Set 1 to expressly seek information
`
`regarding contractors.
`
`
`
`
`
`For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion to compel is DENIED without
`
`prejudice to the issues being raised again if the parties reach an impasse in the context of a
`
`specific RFP. No additional production will be ordered based on the current record.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated this 23rd day of June, 2022.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Robert S. Lasnik
`United States District Judge
`
`
`ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’
`MOTION TO COMPEL - 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
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket