D.D.C.: Under Grubbs, a geofence de-anonymizer SW can’t be challenged before execution

Google responded to a series of search warrants for information and finally objected to a warrant to de-anonymize the information it previously provided. It can’t challenge the warrant before execution under Grubbs. Google LLC v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44719 (D.D.C. Feb. 25, 2025):

Google here raises many of the same points as it did in its original Motion to Quash. In particular, Petitioner argues that the magistrate judge erred by relying on “dicta” in Grubbs to bar a pre-execution constitutional challenge to the warrant; failing to conduct an “independent review of the Warrant’s validity” in light of “new information” and “changed circumstances”; declining to adopt Google’s First and Fourth Amendment positions; neglecting to hold that Google had a due-process right to notice and a hearing before “being compelled to assist in the execution of an unlawful warrant”; and rejecting its § 2703(d) undue-burden arguments. See Mot. at i—iv.

The Court, however, upholds the magistrate judge on each issue. It starts by addressing the threshold question of whether Petitioner has any statutory or constitutional right to bring a pre-execution motion to quash on the ground that the warrant violates the Fourth Amendment. Finding that Google does not, the Court next clarifies that, in any event, no changed circumstances call into question the original probable-cause determination, and Google’s invocations of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause do not entitle it to any further protections. It concludes by rejecting Petitioner’s claim that the records requested are too voluminous in nature to produce and that compliance would thus pose an undue burden.