Arcell et al v. Google LLC et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARY KATHERINE ARCELL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GOOGLE LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 22-cv-02499-RFL
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL
ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Re: Dkt. Nos. 223, 225
Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of the Court’s Order granting in part and denying in part a
request to extend the deadline for exchanging initial expert reports, Dkt. No. 222, and also seek
relief from Magistrate Judge Kim’s Discovery Order, Dkt. No. 221, as amended by Dkt. No.
227. (Dkt. Nos. 223, 225.) Plaintiffs’ motions are DENIED.
The motion for reconsideration is denied because Plaintiffs have not raised a valid basis
for reconsideration. The Order does not fail “to consider material facts or dispositive legal
arguments.” Civ. Local R. 7-9(b)(3). First, the record shows that Plaintiffs delayed pursuing
certain discovery, including the depositions of two Google employees which they noticed for the
first time only weeks before expert reports were due. Plaintiffs’ tactical decision to relentlessly
seek depositions of senior executives of Google and non-party Apple—without first showing that
they had sought the information by less burdensome and more convenient means, see Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) & (b)(2)(C)—does not amount to diligence in this
context. More importantly, Plaintiffs were on notice for at least several weeks that their
discovery disputes would not be resolved in time to incorporate relevant information into their
expert reports before the reports were due, yet they waited until one day before the deadline to
Case 3:22-cv-02499-RFL Document 229 Filed 03/16/26 Page 1 of 2

2
exchange expert reports to seek an extension. Therefore, as already found, Plaintiffs have failed
to demonstrate diligence to support their request to modify the case schedule. Fed. R. Civ. P.
16(b)(4).
The motion for relief from nondispositive pretrial order of magistrate judge is also
denied. Having reviewed Judge Kim’s amended Discovery Order,1 the motion for relief (Dkt.
No. 225), as well as the joint letter briefs submitted about the discovery disputes (Dkt. Nos. 214,
215, 218), the Discovery Order is well-reasoned and is not clearly erroneous or contrary to
law. It was not clear error for the Discovery Order to find that the requested depositions are not
proportional to the needs of the case and are not warranted in light of Plaintiffs’ failure to first
seek less burdensome discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) & (b)(2)(C). Nor was it clear error
to refuse Plaintiffs’ request to conduct a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on a new topic. Plaintiffs had
already previously noticed a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition without including this topic, and the
topic’s only apparent relevance is to a claim that was previously dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 16, 2026
RITA F. LIN
United States District Judge
1 Plaintiffs filed their motion for relief without the benefit of Judge Kim’s amended order. (Dkt.
No. 227.) However, the amendment does not appear to materially change the arguments
available to Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs have not withdrawn their motion. Therefore, the Court will
consider the motion.
Case 3:22-cv-02499-RFL Document 229 Filed 03/16/26 Page 2 of 2