The Google Case at the Supreme Court: Is an Attorney Entitled to Review a File to Which They Are Not a Party?

The Supreme Court rejected an appeal by tech giant Google against an attorney who received permission to review a class action lawsuit pending against the company, even though he is not a party to it. Attorney Amit Zilberg requested to review, in parallel, 24 other previous legal proceedings against Google, on various topics, direct lawsuits, and class actions.

Zilberg claimed that he had received inquiries regarding the company's conduct and that he was seeking to prepare for a proceeding against it. In addition, he argued that since it is a global corporation, there is also a public purpose, and the review would promote transparency.

In some cases, judges in various instances allowed the review, in others they rejected his requests, and some awaited the Supreme Court's decision.

Google objected, arguing that the attorney was conducting an improper "fishing expedition" that amounted to an abuse of legal proceedings. It was argued that he was acting in bad faith to try to locate grounds for a lawsuit by reviewing files unrelated to his clients.

In addition, Google claimed that the attorney submits the review requests in a "copy-paste" format without sufficient justification. Google also claimed that the file contained documents including trade secrets (a matter that was resolved because the documents were not scanned into the file).

Judge Ofer Grosskopf approved this week to hear the motion for leave to appeal that was filed to resolve conflicting previous decisions, and rejected the appeal. The judge ruled that according to the regulations, the starting point of his decision is the default of granting review requests due to the principle of open court proceedings. The court checks whether there is a prohibition on the review, and whether there is justification for the request.

Grosskopf emphasized that the law establishes a higher level of openness in class actions compared to other proceedings: "Class action proceedings often deal with public issues, and therefore even third parties who have no direct interest in the outcome of the proceeding may have an interest in the pleadings therein."

It was further determined that the desire to avoid duplicate litigation also requires allowing parties considering filing class actions information about ongoing proceedings, in a way that will allow them to act informedly and avoid filing unnecessary lawsuits.

"To save unnecessary litigation in the future"

The judge ruled that Google should not have objected to the review of the file. It was determined that whoever requests to review a file can suffice with only a short justification, and this is not a reason to reject the request.

Regarding the claim that this is part of a "fishing expedition" that the attorney is conducting against Google, it was determined that when it comes to class actions, not only is there no obstacle to allowing review of previous proceedings on a similar issue or against the same litigant, but such review should be encouraged. In addition, it was determined that Google's blanket objection to the review request was baseless.

"It is to be hoped that the clarification of the ruling will save unnecessary litigation in the future," the judge ruled, adding that one should object to review requests in class actions only in rare cases where there is a substantive reason to do so.