ORDER that prior to requiring that an unredacted version of page 01139590 be produced to plaintiffs, defendant will be given an opportunity to closely review the information contained in this redaction and if it feels that the court has overlooked the significance of the information contained in that comment, it may provide an explanation to the court for further consideration (see Order for details). Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 06/23/23. (pmil, )
Page 1 PageID#
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,et al.
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. I:23cv0108(LMB/JFA)
GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant.
ORDER
On June 15, 2023, the court heard argument plaintiffs' motion for in camera inspection
and to compel production of documents wrongfully withheld as privileged. (Docket no. 214).
After reviewing the motion, memorandum in support, opposition, and reply, and considering the
arguments ofcounsel during the hearing, the court denied the portion of the motion requesting
that the seventeen documents identified as relating to Remedy Projects be provided to the court
for in camera review. Given the information provided by defendant in the privilege log, the
deposition testimony of defendant's representative, the declaration accompanying the opposition,
and the various communications from defendant's counsel that were included as exhibits to the
pleadings, the court found that plaintiff had not made an adequate factual showing that at least
some of the information in the Remedy Project documents may be subject to disclosure and
thereby justify an in camera review of those documents.
However,the court did find that plaintiff had presented sufficient information to justify
one remaining document at issue in the motion, identified as document number 7,to be deliveredPage 2 PageID#
to the court for in camera inspection.^ On June 16,2023, defendant provided the court with the
redacted version of this document that had been produced to plaintiff along with an unredacted
version of the document.
The court has closely reviewed the entire forty-seven page document, including the four
sets ofredactions that were identified by defendant.^ The text in the six comments made
between July 28 and July 31, 2020 on pages 01139564,01139579, and 01139602 contain
information relating to potential regulatory risks and an analysis ofthose risks. These
discussions include direct input from defendant's in-house counsel and contain information that
is properly withheld as privileged information. Similarly, the information that was redacted on
page 01139570 in the slide titled Commercial Risks reflects the discussions and analysis relating
to potential regulatory risks and an analysis ofthose risks that were addressed above concerning
the redactions on pages 01139564,01139579,and 01139602.
The limited information redacted in footnote 2 of page 01139569 contains a specific
reference to a recommendation from legal relating to a legal issue and was properly redacted.
Having reviewed the information that was redacted in the text for the comment made on
July 20, 2020 at 15:17:46 on page 01139590, it is unclear what,if any, legal analysis or
information relating to any legal analysis is contained in that comment. While there is a
reference to in-house counsel in this comment(as in the earlier comments that were not
redacted), the information in the redacted portion does not, on its face, appear to be related to a
'Plaintiffs withdrew their request for in camera review of document number 3 following
defendant's withdrawal of its privilege assertions to all but one portion of that document.
^ While there are six pages in this document that have information redacted, three ofthe
pages are identical and have the same information redacted on each page. (Docket nos.
01139564,01139579,01139602).Page 3 PageID#
legal issue. Prior to requiring that an unreacted version of page Oil39590 be produced to
plaintiffs, defendant will be given an opportunity to closely review the information contained in
this redaction and if it feels that the court has overlooked the significance of the information
contained in that comment, it may provide an explanation to the court for further consideration.
Entered this 23rd day of June, 2023.
John F. Anderson
tlniteh
MagistratG Judpe
John F. Anderson
United States Magistrate Judge
Alexandria, Virginia
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 274 Filed 06/23/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 2651
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,et al.
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. I:23cv0108(LMB/JFA)
GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant.
ORDER
On June 15, 2023, the court heard argument plaintiffs' motion for in camera inspection
and to compel production of documents wrongfully withheld as privileged. (Docket no. 214).
After reviewing the motion, memorandum in support, opposition, and reply, and considering the
arguments ofcounsel during the hearing, the court denied the portion of the motion requesting
that the seventeen documents identified as relating to Remedy Projects be provided to the court
for in camera review. Given the information provided by defendant in the privilege log, the
deposition testimony of defendant's representative, the declaration accompanying the opposition,
and the various communications from defendant's counsel that were included as exhibits to the
pleadings, the court found that plaintiff had not made an adequate factual showing that at least
some of the information in the Remedy Project documents may be subject to disclosure and
thereby justify an in camera review of those documents.
However,the court did find that plaintiff had presented sufficient information to justify
one remaining document at issue in the motion, identified as document number 7,to be delivered
PDF Page 3
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 274 Filed 06/23/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 2652
to the court for in camera inspection.^ On June 16,2023, defendant provided the court with the
redacted version of this document that had been produced to plaintiff along with an unredacted
version of the document.
The court has closely reviewed the entire forty-seven page document, including the four
sets ofredactions that were identified by defendant.^ The text in the six comments made
between July 28 and July 31, 2020 on pages 01139564,01139579, and 01139602 contain
information relating to potential regulatory risks and an analysis ofthose risks. These
discussions include direct input from defendant's in-house counsel and contain information that
is properly withheld as privileged information. Similarly, the information that was redacted on
page 01139570 in the slide titled Commercial Risks reflects the discussions and analysis relating
to potential regulatory risks and an analysis ofthose risks that were addressed above concerning
the redactions on pages 01139564,01139579,and 01139602.
The limited information redacted in footnote 2 of page 01139569 contains a specific
reference to a recommendation from legal relating to a legal issue and was properly redacted.
Having reviewed the information that was redacted in the text for the comment made on
July 20, 2020 at 15:17:46 on page 01139590, it is unclear what,if any, legal analysis or
information relating to any legal analysis is contained in that comment. While there is a
reference to in-house counsel in this comment(as in the earlier comments that were not
redacted), the information in the redacted portion does not, on its face, appear to be related to a
'Plaintiffs withdrew their request for in camera review of document number 3 following
defendant's withdrawal of its privilege assertions to all but one portion of that document.
^ While there are six pages in this document that have information redacted, three ofthe
pages are identical and have the same information redacted on each page. (Docket nos.
01139564,01139579,01139602).
PDF Page 4
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 274 Filed 06/23/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 2653
legal issue. Prior to requiring that an unreacted version of page Oil39590 be produced to
plaintiffs, defendant will be given an opportunity to closely review the information contained in
this redaction and if it feels that the court has overlooked the significance of the information
contained in that comment, it may provide an explanation to the court for further consideration.
Entered this 23rd day of June, 2023.
John F. Anderson
tlniteh
MagistratG Judpe
John F. Anderson
United States Magistrate Judge
Alexandria, Virginia
Back to 
