MOTION to Compel and for In Camera Review by Commonwealth of Virginia, State of Arizona, State of California, State of Colorado, State of Connecticut, State of Illinois, State of Michigan, State of Minnesota, State of Nebraska, State of New Hampshire, State of New Jersey, State of New York, State of North Carolina, State of Rhode Island, State of Tennessee, State of Washington, State of West Virginia, United States of America. (Attachments: # (1) Appendix, # (2) Exhibit 1-31 (slipsheet), # (3) Proposed Order)(Teitelbaum, Aaron)
Page 1 PageID#
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
UNITED STATES, et al.,
v.
Plaintiffs,
GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for In Camera Inspection and To Compel
Production of Documents Wrongfully Withheld as Privileged, its Memorandum of Law in
Support and the documents referenced therein, and the Court’s in camera review of the
documents identified in the Appendix of Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law, and pursuant to Local
Civil Rule 37, the Court hereby
FINDS Defendant Google has failed to support its claims of attorney-client privilege and
work product protection for the documents identified in the Appendix to Plaintiffs’
Memorandum of Law.
Accordingly, for good cause shown, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant Google LLC produce to Plaintiffs the documents identified in
the Appendix to Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law, without redactions.
DATE: _____________________
____________________________________
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 214-3 Filed 05/19/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID# 1540
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
UNITED STATES, et al.,
v.
Plaintiffs,
GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for In Camera Inspection and To Compel
Production of Documents Wrongfully Withheld as Privileged, its Memorandum of Law in
Support and the documents referenced therein, and the Court’s in camera review of the
documents identified in the Appendix of Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law, and pursuant to Local
Civil Rule 37, the Court hereby
FINDS Defendant Google has failed to support its claims of attorney-client privilege and
work product protection for the documents identified in the Appendix to Plaintiffs’
Memorandum of Law.
Accordingly, for good cause shown, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant Google LLC produce to Plaintiffs the documents identified in
the Appendix to Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law, without redactions.
DATE: _____________________
____________________________________
Back to 
