United States et al v. Google LLC Document 305: Memorandum In Support, Attachment 10

Virginia Eastern District Court
Case No. 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
Filed August 18, 2023

Memorandum in Support re [304] MOTION to Compel filed by Google LLC. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1, # (2) Exhibit 2 SEALED, # (3) Exhibit 3 SEALED, # (4) Exhibit 4 SEALED, # (5) Exhibit 5 SEALED, # (6) Exhibit 6, # (7) Exhibit 7, # (8) Exhibit 8, # (9) Exhibit 9, # (10) Exhibit 10, # (11) Exhibit 11 SEALED, # (12) Exhibit 12 SEALED, # (13) Exhibit 13 SEALED, # (14) Exhibit 14 SEALED, # (15) Exhibit 15 SEALED, # (16) Exhibit 16)(Reilly, Craig)

Back to United States et al v. Google LLC

No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.

Previous: Document 304

Next: Document 306

Jump to Document 305 or Attachment 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 • 16

Formatted Text

Raw Text

Page 1 PageID#
EXHIBIT 10

Page 2 PageID#
Liberty Square Building
450 5th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC
August 17, Eric Mahr, Esq.
Robert McCallum, Esq.
Andrew Ewalt, Esq.
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP
700 13th Street, NW
Washington DC 20005-Re:
Martha L. Goodman, Esq.
Heather C. Milligan, Esq.
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-
United States, et al. v. Google LLC, No. 1:23-cv-108 (E.D. Va.)
Dear Counsel:
I write regarding certain documents produced by the United States from the Federal
Agency Advertisers (FAAs), specifically the U.S. Army. Despite extensive and
reasonable efforts made by the United States to prevent the disclosure or information
protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine, the United
States inadvertently produced to Google the following documents, all of which are
protected attorney work product:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ARMY-ADS-ARMY-ADS-ARMY-ADS-ARMY-ADS-ARMY-ADS-ARMY-ADS-ARMY-ADS-ARMY-ADS-
These documents reflects requests for information and responses that were directed by
DOJ relating to Army digital advertising in anticipation of the instant litigation that were
necessary for DOJ to render legal advice to the Army in connection with potential claims
against Google.
Section 12(a) of the governing Protective Order (ECF No. 98) provides that “the
production of privileged or work-product protected Documents, electronically stored
information (“ESI”), or information, whether inadvertent or otherwise, is not a waiver of
the privilege or protection from discovery in this case or in any other federal or state
proceeding.”
As such, we request that Google return, sequester, or destroy its existing copies of the
documents in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B) and section

Page 3 PageID# 12(c) of the Protective Order. We intend to provide a replacement production containing
redacted versions of these documents.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
/s/ David C. Grossman
David C. Grossman

Page 4 PageID# 4328

PDF Page 1	PlainSite Cover Page

PDF Page 2	Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 305-10 Filed 08/18/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 4325 EXHIBIT 10

PDF Page 3	Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 305-10 Filed 08/18/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 4326 Liberty Square Building 450 5th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 August 17, 2023 Eric Mahr, Esq. Robert McCallum, Esq. Andrew Ewalt, Esq. Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP 700 13th Street, NW Washington DC 20005-3950 Re: Martha L. Goodman, Esq. Heather C. Milligan, Esq. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1047 United States, et al. v. Google LLC, No. 1:23-cv-108 (E.D. Va.) Dear Counsel: I write regarding certain documents produced by the United States from the Federal Agency Advertisers (FAAs), specifically the U.S. Army. Despite extensive and reasonable efforts made by the United States to prevent the disclosure or information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine, the United States inadvertently produced to Google the following documents, all of which are protected attorney work product: • • • • • • • • ARMY-ADS-0000094471 ARMY-ADS-0000094502 ARMY-ADS-0000121371 ARMY-ADS-0000121385 ARMY-ADS-0000121389 ARMY-ADS-0000121392 ARMY-ADS-0000154092 ARMY-ADS-0000154100 These documents reflects requests for information and responses that were directed by DOJ relating to Army digital advertising in anticipation of the instant litigation that were necessary for DOJ to render legal advice to the Army in connection with potential claims against Google. Section 12(a) of the governing Protective Order (ECF No. 98) provides that “the production of privileged or work-product protected Documents, electronically stored information (“ESI”), or information, whether inadvertent or otherwise, is not a waiver of the privilege or protection from discovery in this case or in any other federal or state proceeding.” As such, we request that Google return, sequester, or destroy its existing copies of the documents in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B) and section

PDF Page 4	Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 305-10 Filed 08/18/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID# 4327 12(c) of the Protective Order. We intend to provide a replacement production containing redacted versions of these documents. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, /s/ David C. Grossman David C. Grossman

PDF Page 5	Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 305-10 Filed 08/18/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID# 4328


Issues	Laws	Cases	Pro	Articles	Firms	Entities