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

Plaintiffs allege Google unlawfully collected private data from users involving interactions with third-party apps.
Michael Lasinski, Plaintiffs’ damages expert, provided a calculation based on a “conservative” figure: $3 per device, assuming one month of data collection per class device.
Plaintiffs seek to emphasize, via demonstratives and closing argument, that damages could reflect more than one month’s data collection.
Google previously succeeded in limiting Plaintiff’s expert disclosures to the conservative one-month calculation; this limitation has been a recurring issue.
Google moved to exclude any references to a June 2025 data breach from the trial, arguing it is irrelevant given it occurred after the class period and does not pertain to the alleged privacy invasion.
The court is ruling on Google's motions in limine immediately prior to trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Use of demonstratives referencing extrapolated damages (limine 13)	Can argue Lasinski’s damages figures are for one month only, and argue for extrapolation.	Plaintiffs’ reference to extrapolation is improper as no evidence supports multiplying the figure.	Plaintiffs may refer to the one-month basis and jury may extrapolate, but Plaintiffs cannot suggest a damages figure above expert’s calculation.
Reference to June 2025 data breach (limine 14)	Experts should reference recent data breach as potentially relevant.	Event is irrelevant; occurred after class period and was not part of experts’ reports.	All references to June 2025 breach excluded as irrelevant and prejudicial.