Page 1 PageID#
EXHIBIT 3Page 2 PageID#
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Wood, Julia (ATR)
Andrew Ewalt; Robert McCallum
Teitelbaum, Aaron (ATR); Wolin, Michael (ATR); Vernon, Jeffrey (ATR); Choi, Stephanie (ATR)
Items for Discussion
Tuesday, June 6, 2023 7:09:53 PM
Andy and Rob,
I would like to find time this week to discuss the following topics:
1. Discovery Coordination with Texas AG Case
As luck would have it, the day our Coordination Order was entered, the JMPL remanded the
Texas AG case back to E.D. Texas. As contemplated by the Coordination Order, we would like
to meet and confer regarding how to handle this development.
2. Remedies Phase
It occurs to me that we have not discussed how to handle any fact and expert discovery that
might be uniquely relevant to the remedies Plaintiffs will seek in the event that liability is
established. I would like to discuss a protocol for both, to make sure we have a meeting of
the minds on this before we get too close to the close of fact discovery and the beginning of
expert discovery.
3. Preliminary Witness List Exchanges. As we have explained in recent correspondence, we are
concerned that Google’s initial disclosures, even as supplemented on June 1, do not provide
sufficient information for the Plaintiffs to meaningfully conduct discovery in a manner
consistent with the schedule that the court has set for this case. As you know, Google’s initial
disclosures identified no third parties by name, stating only that Google “may use”
discoverable information from “individuals currently or formerly employed by third parties,
including but not limited to advertisers, advertising agencies, sellers of advertising inventory,
and sellers of advertising technology services.” Google Initial Disclosures at 4 (4/18/2023).
After we noted that this information was insufficient, see, e.g., Letter from Kelly Garcia
(5/17/2023), Google submitted supplemental disclosures that list approximately 195 entities
(not including the parties or Federal Agency Advertisers). That list is so large that the United
States cannot meaningfully conduct discovery, including depositions, on the time frame set
forth for this case. In addition, Google’s list includes almost no information about which
individuals at those entities might have discoverable information that Google might rely on at
trial, further compounding the problem. To address this issue, we would like to discuss an
appropriate protocol for the parties to share preliminary trial witness lists so that both sides
can use their limited depositions most efficiently.
Please let me know when you could meet this week to discuss these topics.
Best,
Julia
Julia Tarver Wood
Senior Litigation Counsel
United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
450 Fifth Street NW | Washington, DC 20530Page 3 PageID# (202) 552-9047 (Mobile Phone)
Julia.Tarver.Wood@usdoj.gov
Pronouns: She/Her/Hers
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 282-3 Filed 07/05/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 2700
EXHIBIT 3
PDF Page 3
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 282-3 Filed 07/05/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 2701
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Wood, Julia (ATR)
Andrew Ewalt; Robert McCallum
Teitelbaum, Aaron (ATR); Wolin, Michael (ATR); Vernon, Jeffrey (ATR); Choi, Stephanie (ATR)
Items for Discussion
Tuesday, June 6, 2023 7:09:53 PM
Andy and Rob,
I would like to find time this week to discuss the following topics:
1. Discovery Coordination with Texas AG Case
As luck would have it, the day our Coordination Order was entered, the JMPL remanded the
Texas AG case back to E.D. Texas. As contemplated by the Coordination Order, we would like
to meet and confer regarding how to handle this development.
2. Remedies Phase
It occurs to me that we have not discussed how to handle any fact and expert discovery that
might be uniquely relevant to the remedies Plaintiffs will seek in the event that liability is
established. I would like to discuss a protocol for both, to make sure we have a meeting of
the minds on this before we get too close to the close of fact discovery and the beginning of
expert discovery.
3. Preliminary Witness List Exchanges. As we have explained in recent correspondence, we are
concerned that Google’s initial disclosures, even as supplemented on June 1, do not provide
sufficient information for the Plaintiffs to meaningfully conduct discovery in a manner
consistent with the schedule that the court has set for this case. As you know, Google’s initial
disclosures identified no third parties by name, stating only that Google “may use”
discoverable information from “individuals currently or formerly employed by third parties,
including but not limited to advertisers, advertising agencies, sellers of advertising inventory,
and sellers of advertising technology services.” Google Initial Disclosures at 4 (4/18/2023).
After we noted that this information was insufficient, see, e.g., Letter from Kelly Garcia
(5/17/2023), Google submitted supplemental disclosures that list approximately 195 entities
(not including the parties or Federal Agency Advertisers). That list is so large that the United
States cannot meaningfully conduct discovery, including depositions, on the time frame set
forth for this case. In addition, Google’s list includes almost no information about which
individuals at those entities might have discoverable information that Google might rely on at
trial, further compounding the problem. To address this issue, we would like to discuss an
appropriate protocol for the parties to share preliminary trial witness lists so that both sides
can use their limited depositions most efficiently.
Please let me know when you could meet this week to discuss these topics.
Best,
Julia
Julia Tarver Wood
Senior Litigation Counsel
United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
450 Fifth Street NW | Washington, DC 20530
PDF Page 4
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 282-3 Filed 07/05/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 2702
(202) 552-9047 (Mobile Phone)
Julia.Tarver.Wood@usdoj.gov
Pronouns: She/Her/Hers
Back to 
