Memorandum in Support re [300] MOTION for In Camera Review of Clawed Back Documents filed by Google LLC. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1 SEALED, # (2) Exhibit 2 SEALED, # (3) Exhibit 3 SEALED, # (4) Exhibit 4 SEALED, # (5) Exhibit 5)(Reilly, Craig)
Page 1 PageID#
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
UNITED STATES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
No. 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant.
GOOGLE LLC’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
OF ITS MOTION FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW
In an apparent attempt to frustrate Google’s motion to compel, Plaintiff United States has
clawed back two deposition transcripts mere hours before Google planned to file its Motion To
Compel Production of Documents and Testimony Wrongly Withheld as Privileged, or, in the
Alternative, for In Camera Review, and To Modify Section V.8.e. of the ESI Order (“Motion to
Compel”), even though one deposition took place eight days ago and the other three days ago.
Plaintiff requested that Google “return, sequester, or destroy all copies of the deposition
transcripts,” thereby preventing Google from relying on those transcripts as part of its Motion to
Compel. Ex. 5 at 2. Plaintiffs “intend to provide replacement” and “redacted” copies at some
unspecified point in the future. Id.
Google disagrees with Plaintiff’s claims of privilege. For reasons fully stated in Google’s
corresponding Motion to Compel, attorney work product, attorney-client privilege, deliberative
process, and any other type of protections do not apply to this testimony.Page 2 PageID#
Pursuant to Paragraph 12(c) of the Protective Order, Dkt. No. 203, a party, after “being
notified” of the production of information “protected by the attorney-client privilege or any other
privilege or immunity” may “promptly present the information to the court under seal for a
determination of the claim in camera.” Therefore, Google requests that the Court review the
transcripts in camera to make a determination on Plaintiff’s claims. Specifically, Google seeks in
camera review of:
Karpenko Deposition [Exhibit 1]● Page 46, Line 4, at 11:16:48 – Page 48, Line 15, at 11:21:● Page 49, Line 13 at 11:22:26 – Page 49, Line 15, at 11:22:● Page 51, Line 25, at 11:25:10 – Page 52, Line 7, at 11:26:● Page 56, Line 18, at 11:43:26 – Page 56, Line 20, at 11:43:● Page 54, Line 6, at 11:41:17 – Page 54, Line 12, at 11:41:● Page 78, Line 21, at 12:20:26 – Page 80, Line 10, at 12:23:Owens Deposition [Exhibit 2]
● Page 247, Line 13 – Page 250, Line ● Page 254, Line 19 – Page 255, Line Google requests that the Court find that the above-referenced testimony is not covered by
any privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure, and allow Google to resume its use of the
sequestered transcripts.
Google further requests that the Court, given the tardiness of Plaintiffs’ letter and
subsequent prejudice to Google, also review certain sections of the transcripts that are not subject
DOJ’s citations are to the rough transcript. Google had been relying on the final version of the
transcripts in preparation for filing its motion to compel. Google attaches the final versions as
exhibits 3 and 4.
1Page 3 PageID#
to Plaintiff’s claw back letter. These sections would have been included in Google’s Motion to
Compel but for Plaintiff’s untimely letter. Google should not be prejudiced by Plaintiff’s failure
to provide a redacted transcript along with their claw back letter.Page 4 PageID#
Dated: August 18, 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
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)
AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER
LLP
1901 L Street, NW
Washington, DC Telephone: (202) 912-Facsimile: (202) 912-bjustus@axinn.com
Counsel for Defendant Google LLC
Respectfully submitted,
/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
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-mdearborn@paulweiss.com
Erin J. Morgan (pro hac vice)
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019-Telephone: (212) 373-Facsimile: (212) 492-ejmorgan@paulweiss.com
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 301 Filed 08/18/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 3459
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
UNITED STATES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
No. 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant.
GOOGLE LLC’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
OF ITS MOTION FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW
In an apparent attempt to frustrate Google’s motion to compel, Plaintiff United States has
clawed back two deposition transcripts mere hours before Google planned to file its Motion To
Compel Production of Documents and Testimony Wrongly Withheld as Privileged, or, in the
Alternative, for In Camera Review, and To Modify Section V.8.e. of the ESI Order (“Motion to
Compel”), even though one deposition took place eight days ago and the other three days ago.
Plaintiff requested that Google “return, sequester, or destroy all copies of the deposition
transcripts,” thereby preventing Google from relying on those transcripts as part of its Motion to
Compel. Ex. 5 at 2. Plaintiffs “intend to provide replacement” and “redacted” copies at some
unspecified point in the future. Id.
Google disagrees with Plaintiff’s claims of privilege. For reasons fully stated in Google’s
corresponding Motion to Compel, attorney work product, attorney-client privilege, deliberative
process, and any other type of protections do not apply to this testimony.
PDF Page 3
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 301 Filed 08/18/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 3460
Pursuant to Paragraph 12(c) of the Protective Order, Dkt. No. 203, a party, after “being
notified” of the production of information “protected by the attorney-client privilege or any other
privilege or immunity” may “promptly present the information to the court under seal for a
determination of the claim in camera.” Therefore, Google requests that the Court review the
transcripts in camera to make a determination on Plaintiff’s claims. Specifically, Google seeks in
camera review of:
Karpenko Deposition [Exhibit 1]1
● Page 46, Line 4, at 11:16:48 – Page 48, Line 15, at 11:21:23
● Page 49, Line 13 at 11:22:26 – Page 49, Line 15, at 11:22:32
● Page 51, Line 25, at 11:25:10 – Page 52, Line 7, at 11:26:10
● Page 56, Line 18, at 11:43:26 – Page 56, Line 20, at 11:43:37
● Page 54, Line 6, at 11:41:17 – Page 54, Line 12, at 11:41:45
● Page 78, Line 21, at 12:20:26 – Page 80, Line 10, at 12:23:09
Owens Deposition [Exhibit 2]
● Page 247, Line 13 – Page 250, Line 10
● Page 254, Line 19 – Page 255, Line 5
Google requests that the Court find that the above-referenced testimony is not covered by
any privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure, and allow Google to resume its use of the
sequestered transcripts.
Google further requests that the Court, given the tardiness of Plaintiffs’ letter and
subsequent prejudice to Google, also review certain sections of the transcripts that are not subject
DOJ’s citations are to the rough transcript. Google had been relying on the final version of the
transcripts in preparation for filing its motion to compel. Google attaches the final versions as
exhibits 3 and 4.
1
PDF Page 4
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 301 Filed 08/18/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID# 3461
to Plaintiff’s claw back letter. These sections would have been included in Google’s Motion to
Compel but for Plaintiff’s untimely letter. Google should not be prejudiced by Plaintiff’s failure
to provide a redacted transcript along with their claw back letter.
PDF Page 5
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 301 Filed 08/18/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID# 3462
Dated: August 18, 2023
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
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)
AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER
LLP
1901 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 912-4700
Facsimile: (202) 912-4701
bjustus@axinn.com
Counsel for Defendant Google LLC
Respectfully submitted,
/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
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
mdearborn@paulweiss.com
Erin J. Morgan (pro hac vice)
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019-6064
Telephone: (212) 373-3387
Facsimile: (212) 492-0387
ejmorgan@paulweiss.com
Back to 
