On May 9, 2013, the US District Court for the Northern District of California issued an opinion in Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., ordering Google Inc. to produce a list of search terms and custodians of documents requested by Apple Inc. in its third-party subpoena.

Apple served a third-party subpoena on Google. After Google produced documents responsive to the third-party subpoena, Apple moved to compel Google to produce a list of the search terms and custodians that Google used in responding to the subpoena so it could evaluate the adequacy of Google's searches to determine whether it would attempt to obtain more responsive discovery.

Google contended that its third-party status exempted it from the obligation to show the sufficiency of production and opposed Apple's request. Google argued that Apple should first show that Google's production was deficient, and if so, then Apple should determine what documents were missing or what terms would generate more responsive results. Google's argument was that it was overly burdensome to require non-parties to provide transparency into their search methodology and custodians in response to non-party subpoenas because disclosing their methods could subject them to more requests for discovery.

The Northern District of California ordered Google to produce the requested search terms and custodians to Apple within 48 hours of the order and for both parties to meet and confer after the production to resolve any remaining discovery disputes. Producing the requested information would help Apple determine the sufficiency of Google's production and served the greater purpose of transparency in discovery. The court stated that Google's third-party status did not relieve it from its obligations to participate in transparent and collaborative discovery once it was subject to a subpoena.