Rodriguez et al 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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ANIBAL RODRIGUEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant.
Case No. 20-cv-04688-RS
ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY'S
FEES AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVE
SERVICE AWARDS
After years of litigation, this privacy class action has culminated in a $425 million jury
verdict. Plaintiffs’ counsel now moves for one third of that common fund in attorney’s fees. The
request, which totaled $146,781,895.13 as of final judgment (accounting for post-judgment
interest), is granted.
This request is, without question, extraordinary, but it is warranted by the extraordinary
nature of the case as well as by the exemplary performance of counsel. Plaintiffs’ counsel
undertook a great deal of risk in bringing this case on contingency, and they ably navigated the
many hazards between filing the complaint and obtaining a favorable judgment. They survived
motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, litigated copious discovery disputes, and prevailed
on a hotly contested class certification motion before trying the claims to a jury. This was no small
feat. Cases of this complexity and magnitude almost never make it to a jury, and counsel’s
willingness to bear the risk of a total loss to maximize the recovery to the class places this in a
special category.
The reasonableness of the fee request is confirmed by a lodestar crosscheck. Plaintiffs’
Case 3:20-cv-04688-RS Document 1010 Filed 08/28/26 Page 1 of 3

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVE SERVICE
AWARDS
CASE NO. 20-cv-04688-RS
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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
counsel have, to this point, devoted 49,670 hours to this litigation, and there is surely more to
come on appeal. Applying their stated hourly rates yields a lodestar of $56,768,654 and a fee
request multiple of 2.59. The lodestar calculation implies a blended hourly rate of $1,143, a figure
warranted by the skill, experience, and reputation of the lawyers in this case. The multiple of 2.59
is also justified by the complexity of the case, the risk assumed by counsel, and the result.
Nor is there much concern that the lodestar has been inflated by a bloated legal team.
Because this case was litigated on contingency, counsel had every incentive to work efficiently.
Incurring extra expenses would not have increased their recovery, as the fee award is determined
principally by the size of the recovery to the class. If the verdict had been for Google, Plaintiffs’
counsel’s loss would have been larger had they overstaffed the case. The substantial legal muscle
involved here is a reflection of the complexity and gravity of the case, not of over-lawyering.
To be sure, there is some intuitive discomfort with a fee award this large. The lawyers are
being handsomely rewarded for their success, even as each of the 98 million class members will
walk away with less than $5. That is, however, a consequence of the policy choice to use the class
action device to remedy widespread torts. No individual class member had an incentive to bring a
claim, and counsel was only incentivized to pursue the case through the prospect of a large fee
award. In our system, there is simply no other way to ensure that a defendant that commits a small
tort against a large number of people is held accountable.
The request for service awards of $50,000 for the two testifying class representatives and
$35,000 for the non-testifying class representative is also granted. These are large service awards,
but they are commensurate with the burden of serving as a class representative in a case of this
size and duration. All three class representatives sat for lengthy depositions, and the testimony of
the two who were called as witnesses was instrumental in securing a favorable verdict. The total
sum of the service awards, $135,000, is an inconsequential fraction of the common fund. It
represents 0.03% of the common fund as of the judgment before the award of attorney’s fees and
0.046% of the same after accounting for the fee award.
Case 3:20-cv-04688-RS Document 1010 Filed 08/28/26 Page 2 of 3

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVE SERVICE
AWARDS
CASE NO. 20-cv-04688-RS
3
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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 28, 2026
______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge
Case 3:20-cv-04688-RS Document 1010 Filed 08/28/26 Page 3 of 3