United States v. Two email accounts stored at Google Inc, 2:17-mj-01235

Background

Government sought a §2703 warrant compelling Google to disclose emails for two Gmail accounts in a federal criminal investigation; Google produced U.S.-stored data but moved to exclude data stored abroad.
Google is headquartered in California and stores user data across multiple data centers worldwide; data can be split and moved automatically for performance, and Google sometimes cannot determine the country where specific data resides.
Only U.S.-based Google personnel can access data for law enforcement production.
The government relied on the Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. §2703) to compel disclosure; Google argued the warrant could not reach data physically stored outside the United States.
The court initially issued a memorandum authorizing the warrant to reach data stored abroad; Google moved to amend the warrant to exclude foreign-stored data, prompting reconsideration with adversarial briefing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a §2703 warrant may compel a U.S. provider to produce user data that is stored on servers located outside the U.S.	Gov't: §2703 is an in personam order directed to the provider; what matters is the provider's presence within U.S. court reach, not where data is stored.	Google: §2703 warrants are akin to traditional warrants seizing property; if the data object is located abroad, the U.S. court lacks extraterritorial authority.	Court held §2703 warrants are directed at the provider (in personam); the provider’s U.S. presence allows the court to compel production regardless of where data is stored.
Whether ordering a provider to transfer data from foreign servers to the U.S. infringes user privacy or raises Fourth Amendment problems	Gov't: User privacy is protected by the warrant/prior probable cause requirement; ordering transfer does not meaningfully interfere with user possessory interest.	Google: Forcing seizure of data located abroad implicates extraterritorial limits and user property/privacy interests in stored data.	Court held transfer does not implicate additional Fourth Amendment concerns because the search/seizure occurs when the provider discloses data in the U.S.; location of underlying storage carries no separate user privacy interest here.

Key Cases Cited

In re Warrant to Search a Certain E–Mail Account Controlled & Maintained by Microsoft Corp., 829 F.3d 197 (2d Cir. 2016) (held that §2703 warrant could not reach data stored overseas)
In re Warrant to Search a Certain E–Mail Account Controlled & Maintained by Microsoft Corp., 855 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2017) (dissent from denial of rehearing arguing statutory focus and extraterritoriality issues)
In re A Warrant to Search a Certain E–Mail Account Controlled & Maintained by Microsoft Corp., 15 F. Supp. 3d 466 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (district court opinion allowing a §2703 order directed at provider despite foreign storage)

Conclusion: Google’s motion to amend the warrant to exclude data stored abroad was denied; the magistrate held that §2703 authorizes compelling a U.S. provider to produce or relocate data irrespective of the physical location of stored data.