Google is opposing a move by Unlockd Media seeking the recusal of U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. in an antitrust lawsuit in California federal court, arguing that the judge's close relationship with Google's vice president for litigation and discovery doesn't require him to step away from the case.

In a response filed Wednesday, Google said the instant case does not merit Judge Gilliam's recusal, as the litigation VP, Cassandra Knight, joined the technology giant well into the case and has had no involvement in the matter.

"Ms. Knight's lack of involvement in this case, coupled with the fact that she is one of hundreds of legal team members and many thousands of employees who work at Google, confirms that no reasonable person could question the court's impartiality here," according to the filing. "As the court's multiple orders granting Google's respective motions to dismiss made clear, all the at-issue conduct in this case began many years before Ms. Knight started working at Google."

Google added that the case began well before Knight began working for the company in August 2022 and that Unlockd brought its first complaint in September 2021. The case was assigned in October 2021, and Unlockd filed an amended complaint in January 2022, Google pointed out, adding that the parties had fully briefed Google's motion to dismiss by June 2022.

The friendship between Judge Gilliam and Knight was documented in a July 2025 article in the Stanford Lawyer Magazine that noted the judge officiated at Knight's wedding in 2021 and that Knight had spoken at Judge Gilliam's investiture ceremony about a decade ago.

These same revelations recently prompted video-sharing site Rumble to request Judge Gilliam's recusal in its own antitrust suit against Google. Rumble's counsel reportedly learned about the judge's connection to Knight in October.

When seeking the judge's recusal in November, Unlockd cited Rumble's case and raised the same concerns about the appearance of impropriety. It wrote that "this court's nondisclosure is particularly significant here because it continued presiding over this case — including through the entry of summary judgment in Google's favor — despite issuing recusal orders in other Google-related matters after Knight's arrival at Google."

Unlockd added that it wasn't aware of the relationship until after the Rumble filing.

Google countered that Unlockd didn't make any arguments of its own and instead pointed "to a different motion filed by a different plaintiff in an unrelated case, with little attempt to apply the arguments to this case."

The tech giant also said Unlockd cited two cases in support of its motion but did not explain why they were relevant when neither case showed that a friendship between a judge and an employee of a party can give rise to an appearance of partiality.

Furthermore, Google asserted, Unlockd's citations to other cases where Google and Knight's prior employer is a party and the court issued recusal orders also do not support recusal in this matter. The company reiterated Knight's lack of employment at the time and lack of involvement.

Judge Gilliam granted Google's request to dismiss the case earlier this year, saying in a February opinion that Unlockd "has offered no factual support from which the court could assume that harm to plaintiff is somehow tantamount to harm to this entire [digital advertising] market."

"Plaintiff's theory is also further undermined by its acknowledgment that similar products do continue to exist in the digital advertising market," he wrote.

Unlockd is appealing the decision to the Ninth Circuit.

In Wednesday's filing, Google alternatively contended that Unlockd is only seeking a prospective recusal if the case returns to the lower court and that the court can defer its ruling unless and until the Ninth Circuit reverses and remands the matter.

Counsel for the parties in the case Unlockd brought did not immediately respond to Law360's requests for comment Thursday.

Unlockd is represented by Allan B. Diamond, Justin B. Strother and Damion Robinson of Diamond McCarthy LLP and Nicholas A. Gravante Jr., Philip J. Iovieno and Jack G. Stern of Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP.

Google is represented by Beatriz Mejia, Alexander J. Kasner, Ashley K Corkery, Deepti Bansal and John C. Dwyer of Cooley LLP.

The case is Unlockd Media Inc. Liquidation Trust v. Google LLC et al., case number 4:21-cv-07250, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.