Rumble, Inc. v. Google LLC

facts.” Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., No. 14-CV-04741-RS (MEJ), 2017 WL 1352052, at *2 (N.D. 27 2020 WL 12584277, at *5 (C.D. Cal. July 20, 2020). However, fact discovery in this case has already closed, and at the hearing, the parties indicated that since the filing of the Joint Discovery Letter Brief, the parties have exchanged opening expert reports. Therefore, Rumble is now in a position to provide expert opinion to Google’s contention interrogatories, to the extent it disagrees with Google’s claim as to whether any particular interrogatory seeks facts or expert opinion. The Court first considers Interrogatory No. 6, which is the only contention interrogatory for which Rumble provided a substantive initial response, a supplemental response, and a second supplemental response. Interrogatory No. 6 asks that Rumble “[i]dentify by bates number any agreement [Rumble] allege[s] to have harmed competition in the alleged relevant market in this case, what specific provision of each of the agreements harmed competition, and how it has done so.” ECF No. 113-1 at 10. All together these responses are convoluted to say the least. The…