Page 1 PageID#
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
UNITED STATES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
No. 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant.
GOOGLE LLC’S RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
On June 23, 2023, the Court issued an order (ECF. No. 274) on Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Compel and for in camera inspection (ECF No. 214) (“Motion”). After reviewing in camera
an unredacted version of Document No. 7 at issue in Plaintiffs’ Motion, the Court concluded
that Google had properly redacted for privilege all but one of the redacted comments. As for
the remaining redacted comment, made on July 20, 2020 at 15:17:46 on page GOOG-DOJAT-01139590, the Court stated that it was “unclear what, if any, legal analysis or information
relating to any legal analysis is contained in that comment” and that “the information in the
redacted portion does not, on its face, appear to be related to a legal issue.” ECF No. 274 at 23. The Court further stated that, “[p]rior to requiring that an unredacted version of page
01139590 be produced to plaintiffs,” it would allow Google “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.” Id. at 3. Having closely re-reviewed the comment, Google respectfully submits
that it consists of a Google in-house attorney’s legal advice regarding contract terms. Page 2 PageID#
The comment in question is part of a string of comments among Google in-house
lawyers and non-lawyers discussing terms used in certain Google contracts. As part of that
string, at 11:57:47 on July 20, 2020, a Google Product Counsel began his comment by stating
that he deferred to two other Google in-house lawyers (the first identified by first name and the
second identified by email address) because those lawyers were closer to the contracts in
question. In the second sentence of his 11:57:47 comment, the Product Counsel asked the
second lawyer—a Google Commercial Counsel, identified now by first name rather than email
address—to look into the issue, because the first lawyer was out of office that day. The Google
Commercial Counsel responded with the 15:17:46 comment at issue, addressing the Product
Counsel by a shortened form of his first name before providing the response that the Product
Counsel had requested in the 11:57:47 comment. The Commercial Counsel advised the
Product Counsel and the non-lawyer Google employees on the comment thread what the terms
of the contracts at issue are, how and when they are used, and what they mean. In subparts and 3 of his response, he called out by email address the first attorney named in the first
sentence of the Product Counsel’s 11:57:47 comment, in case she had additional advice
regarding the contract terms. Google therefore respectfully submits that the comment in
question is a privileged attorney-client communication. See, e.g., NLRB v. Interbake Foods,
LLC, 637 F.3d 492, 502 (4th Cir. 2011) (privilege applies to confidential communications
between lawyer and client “for the purpose of securing primarily either (i) an opinion on law
or (ii) legal services or (iii) assistance in some legal proceeding” (emphasis added)).
Accordingly, Google respectfully submits that the comment should remain redacted. Page 3 PageID#
Dated: June 26,
Respectfully submitted,
Eric Mahr (pro hac vice)
Andrew Ewalt (pro hac vice)
Julie Elmer (pro hac vice)
Lauren Kaplin (pro hac vice)
Scott A. Eisman (pro hac vice)
Jeanette Bayoumi (pro hac vice)
Claire Leonard (pro hac vice)
Sara Salem (pro hac vice)
Tyler Garrett (VSB # 94759)
FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS
DERINGER US LLP
700 13th Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC Telephone: (202) 777-Facsimile: (202) 777-eric.mahr@freshfields.com
/s/ Craig C. Reilly
Craig C. Reilly (VSB # 20942)
THE LAW OFFICE OF
CRAIG C. REILLY, ESQ.
209 Madison Street, Suite Alexandria, VA Telephone: (703) 549-Facsimile: (703) 549-craig.reilly@ccreillylaw.com
Karen L. Dunn (pro hac vice)
Jeannie H. Rhee (pro hac vice)
William A. Isaacson (pro hac vice)
Joseph Bial (pro hac vice)
Amy J. Mauser (pro hac vice)
Martha L. Goodman (pro hac vice)
Bryon P. Becker (VSB #93384)
Erica Spevack (pro hac vice)
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-Telephone: (202) 223-Facsimile (202) 223-kdunn@paulweiss.com
Daniel Bitton (pro hac vice)
AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP
55 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA Telephone: (415) 490-Facsimile: (415) 490-dbitton@axinn.com
Bradley Justus (VSB # 80533)
Koren Wong-Ervin (pro hac vice)
AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP
1901 L Street, NW
Washington, DC Telephone: (202) 912-Facsimile: (202) 912-bjustus@axinn.com
kwongervin@axinn.com
Meredith Dearborn (pro hac vice)
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
535 Mission Street, 24th Floor
San Francisco, CA Telephone: (646) 432-Facsimile: (202) 330-mdearnborn@paulweiss.com
Counsel for Defendant Google LLC
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 275 Filed 06/26/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 2654
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
UNITED STATES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
No. 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant.
GOOGLE LLC’S RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
On June 23, 2023, the Court issued an order (ECF. No. 274) on Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Compel and for in camera inspection (ECF No. 214) (“Motion”). After reviewing in camera
an unredacted version of Document No. 7 at issue in Plaintiffs’ Motion, the Court concluded
that Google had properly redacted for privilege all but one of the redacted comments. As for
the remaining redacted comment, made on July 20, 2020 at 15:17:46 on page GOOG-DOJAT-01139590, the Court stated that it was “unclear what, if any, legal analysis or information
relating to any legal analysis is contained in that comment” and that “the information in the
redacted portion does not, on its face, appear to be related to a legal issue.” ECF No. 274 at 23. The Court further stated that, “[p]rior to requiring that an unredacted version of page
01139590 be produced to plaintiffs,” it would allow Google “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.” Id. at 3. Having closely re-reviewed the comment, Google respectfully submits
that it consists of a Google in-house attorney’s legal advice regarding contract terms.
1
PDF Page 3
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 275 Filed 06/26/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 2655
The comment in question is part of a string of comments among Google in-house
lawyers and non-lawyers discussing terms used in certain Google contracts. As part of that
string, at 11:57:47 on July 20, 2020, a Google Product Counsel began his comment by stating
that he deferred to two other Google in-house lawyers (the first identified by first name and the
second identified by email address) because those lawyers were closer to the contracts in
question. In the second sentence of his 11:57:47 comment, the Product Counsel asked the
second lawyer—a Google Commercial Counsel, identified now by first name rather than email
address—to look into the issue, because the first lawyer was out of office that day. The Google
Commercial Counsel responded with the 15:17:46 comment at issue, addressing the Product
Counsel by a shortened form of his first name before providing the response that the Product
Counsel had requested in the 11:57:47 comment. The Commercial Counsel advised the
Product Counsel and the non-lawyer Google employees on the comment thread what the terms
of the contracts at issue are, how and when they are used, and what they mean. In subparts 2
and 3 of his response, he called out by email address the first attorney named in the first
sentence of the Product Counsel’s 11:57:47 comment, in case she had additional advice
regarding the contract terms. Google therefore respectfully submits that the comment in
question is a privileged attorney-client communication. See, e.g., NLRB v. Interbake Foods,
LLC, 637 F.3d 492, 502 (4th Cir. 2011) (privilege applies to confidential communications
between lawyer and client “for the purpose of securing primarily either (i) an opinion on law
or (ii) legal services or (iii) assistance in some legal proceeding” (emphasis added)).
Accordingly, Google respectfully submits that the comment should remain redacted.
2
PDF Page 4
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 275 Filed 06/26/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 2656
Dated: June 26, 2023
Respectfully submitted,
Eric Mahr (pro hac vice)
Andrew Ewalt (pro hac vice)
Julie Elmer (pro hac vice)
Lauren Kaplin (pro hac vice)
Scott A. Eisman (pro hac vice)
Jeanette Bayoumi (pro hac vice)
Claire Leonard (pro hac vice)
Sara Salem (pro hac vice)
Tyler Garrett (VSB # 94759)
FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS
DERINGER US LLP
700 13th Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 777-4500
Facsimile: (202) 777-4555
eric.mahr@freshfields.com
/s/ Craig C. Reilly
Craig C. Reilly (VSB # 20942)
THE LAW OFFICE OF
CRAIG C. REILLY, ESQ.
209 Madison Street, Suite 501
Alexandria, VA 22314
Telephone: (703) 549-5354
Facsimile: (703) 549-5355
craig.reilly@ccreillylaw.com
Karen L. Dunn (pro hac vice)
Jeannie H. Rhee (pro hac vice)
William A. Isaacson (pro hac vice)
Joseph Bial (pro hac vice)
Amy J. Mauser (pro hac vice)
Martha L. Goodman (pro hac vice)
Bryon P. Becker (VSB #93384)
Erica Spevack (pro hac vice)
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1047
Telephone: (202) 223-7300
Facsimile (202) 223-7420
kdunn@paulweiss.com
Daniel Bitton (pro hac vice)
AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP
55 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 490-2000
Facsimile: (415) 490-2001
dbitton@axinn.com
Bradley Justus (VSB # 80533)
Koren Wong-Ervin (pro hac vice)
AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP
1901 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 912-4700
Facsimile: (202) 912-4701
bjustus@axinn.com
kwongervin@axinn.com
Meredith Dearborn (pro hac vice)
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
535 Mission Street, 24th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (646) 432-5100
Facsimile: (202) 330-5908
mdearnborn@paulweiss.com
Counsel for Defendant Google LLC
3
Back to 
