Rodriguez v. Google LLC, 3:20-cv-04688

This is a major data privacy class action in the Northern District of California, with potential damages in the hundreds of millions to billions of dollars.
Plaintiffs allege Google collected data from users who had switched off certain privacy controls, specifically (s)WAA, via Google Analytics for Firebase (GA4F) embedded in third-party apps.
The parties submitted numerous pretrial motions in limine to determine what evidence and arguments will be permitted at trial.
The disputes span bifurcation of damages (including punitive damages), admissibility of evidence on prior complaints, app developer consent, and expert/employee witness testimony.
Several evidentiary rulings focus on limiting prejudice (especially fiscal prejudice) and preventing trial detours into irrelevant or highly prejudicial avenues.
The court will invite the jury to provide an advisory verdict on the equitable remedy of disgorgement, though the decision ultimately rests with the judge.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Bifurcation of punitive damages	Opposed; evidence intermingled with liability	In favor; revenue evidence prejudicial	Bifurcation granted; amount of punitive damages separate
Evidence re: former plaintiff withdrawals	Should be excluded; irrelevant, prejudicial	Focused on one recent exit; rest not opposed	Excluded evidence except for pending Cataldo issue
Argument that app developer consent suffices	Consent theory based on third-party developers is irrelevant	Developer agreements show users are informed	Evidence of developer requirements allowed for offensiveness but not consent
Admissibility of prior complaints and procedural history	Exclude as prejudicial and irrelevant	Prior pleadings admissible for impeachment, etc.	Limited admission: factual prior averments relevant; legal claims excluded
Testimony of ex-employee Lemoine from other case	Admission justified by late contact and relevance	Hearsay, different case and motive, prejudicial	Excluded as inadmissible hearsay, lacks similar motive
Disgorgement remedy to jury	Jury should decide; overlaps harm elements	Equitable issue for court, not jury	Jury to advise, court decides ultimate disgorgement
Evidence of Alphabet/Google total revenues	Permissible to show scale, reasonableness of damages	Irrelevant, prejudicial, especially Alphabet's data	Excluded except for revenues specific to challenged conduct

Hangarter v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2004) (establishes the normal practice to try compensatory and punitive damages together with clear jury instructions)
Huey v. Honeywell, Inc., 82 F.3d 327 (9th Cir. 1996) (prior pleadings are admissible as evidentiary admissions and impeachment)
Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204 (2002) (distinguishes between legal and equitable remedies, relevant to disgorgement)
SEC v. Rind, 991 F.2d 1486 (9th Cir. 1993) (disgorgement of profits is an equitable issue to which no right to a jury attaches)
Hassebrock v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp., 14-cv-1835-RSM (W.D. Wash. 2016) (prior pleadings are usable for impeachment)