REPLY to Response to Motion re [311] MOTION for Protective Order re Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition filed by Google LLC. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A, # (2) Exhibit B, # (3) Exhibit C, # (4) Exhibit D)(Reilly, Craig)
Page 1 PageID#
EXHIBIT CPage 2 PageID#
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Teitelbaum, Aaron (ATR)
Wednesday, August 23, 2023 4:30 PM
EWALT, Andrew (AJE)
Wood, Julia (ATR); ELMER, Julie (JSE); RHEE, Wang Jae; SALEM, Sara; Freeman, Michael
(ATR); dpearl@axinn.com; Garcia, Kelly (ATR); Wolin, Michael (ATR); Mene, Gerard
(USAVAE); aferguson@oag.state.va.us; spopps@oag.state.va.us; thenry@oag.state.va.us;
kgallagher@oag.state.va.us; Brian Wang; Paula Blizzard; bryn.williams@coag.gov;
jan.zavislan@coag.gov; steve.kaufmann@coag.gov; nicole.demers@ct.gov;
yale.leber@law.njoag.gov; elinor.hoffmann@ag.ny.gov; morgan.feder@ag.ny.gov;
david.mcdowell@ag.tn.gov; ethan.bowers@ag.tn.gov; Vernon, Jeffrey (ATR);
tyler.corcoran@ag.tn.gov; Elizabeth.Maxeiner@ilag.gov; jayme.weber@azag.gov;
cari.jeffries@ca.ag.gov; amy.hanson@atg.wa.gov; brandon.h.garod@doj.nh.gov;
james.r.davis@doj.nh.gov; douglas.l.davis@wvago.gov; joseph.conrad@nebraska.gov;
jmcghee@ncdoj.gov; jmarx@ncdoj.gov; kchoksi@ncdoj.gov; Tyler.Arnold@atg.wa.gov;
kate.iiams@atg.wa.gov; colin.snider@nebraska.gov; zach.biesanz@ag.state.mn.us;
evansj@michigan.gov; mertenss@michigan.gov; sprovazza@riag.ri.gov;
Jennifer.Coronel@ilag.gov; JHarrison@oag.state.va.us; McBirney, Jimmy (ATR); Barry,
Kaitlyn (ATR); Briskin, Craig (ATR); Clemons, Katherine (ATR); Guarnera, Daniel (ATR);
Choi, Stephanie (ATR); Lauren.Pomeroy@doj.ca.gov; locean@riag.ri.gov; Nakamura,
Brent (ATR); Strick, Amanda (ATR); Daniel Bitton; Ali Vissichelli; Dunn, Karen L; Rhee,
Jeannie S; Isaacson, William A; Bial, Joseph J; Dearborn, Meredith; Morgan, Erin J; Amy
Mauser; Goodman, Martha; MAHR, Eric (EJM); MCCALLUM, Robert; GARRETT, Tyler; TU,
Xiaoxi; craig.reilly@ccreillylaw.com; EISMAN, Scott; Milligan, Heather C; MURRAY, Sean
RE: Narrowing 30(b)(6) notices
Andy,
As you and I discussed yesterday evening, plaintiffs were interested in seeking a continuance of the briefing schedule at
that point to allow both sides to focus additional energy on negotiations rather than briefing. Google's proposal, coming
shortly before plaintiffs' filing deadline, gives that additional respite only to Google and not to plaintiffs. We look
forward to continuing to negotiate with Google in the coming days, but we are not amenable to Google's offer to seek
an extension from the court now, after plaintiffs have expended significant time and effort (that could have been spent
negotiating) on preparing their filings.
We look forward to our continuing negotiations about the parties’ respective Rule 30(b)(6) notices.
Aaron M. Teitelbaum
Senior Litigation Counsel | Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
450 Fifth Street NW
Washington, DC Mobile: (202) 894-
From: EWALT, Andrew (AJE)
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:28 PM
To: Teitelbaum, Aaron (ATR)
1Page 3 PageID# Cc: Wood, Julia (ATR) ; ELMER, Julie (JSE) ; RHEE, Wang
Jae ; SALEM, Sara ; Freeman, Michael (ATR) ; dpearl@axinn.com; Garcia, Kelly (ATR) ; Wolin, Michael (ATR) ; Mene, Gerard (USAVAE) ; aferguson@oag.state.va.us;
spopps@oag.state.va.us; thenry@oag.state.va.us; kgallagher@oag.state.va.us; Brian Wang ;
Paula Blizzard ; bryn.williams@coag.gov; jan.zavislan@coag.gov;
steve.kaufmann@coag.gov; nicole.demers@ct.gov; yale.leber@law.njoag.gov; elinor.hoffmann@ag.ny.gov;
morgan.feder@ag.ny.gov; david.mcdowell@ag.tn.gov; ethan.bowers@ag.tn.gov; Vernon, Jeffrey (ATR) ; tyler.corcoran@ag.tn.gov; Elizabeth.Maxeiner@ilag.gov; jayme.weber@azag.gov;
cari.jeffries@ca.ag.gov; amy.hanson@atg.wa.gov; brandon.h.garod@doj.nh.gov; james.r.davis@doj.nh.gov;
douglas.l.davis@wvago.gov; joseph.conrad@nebraska.gov; jmcghee@ncdoj.gov; jmarx@ncdoj.gov; kchoksi@ncdoj.gov;
Tyler.Arnold@atg.wa.gov; kate.iiams@atg.wa.gov; colin.snider@nebraska.gov; zach.biesanz@ag.state.mn.us;
evansj@michigan.gov; mertenss@michigan.gov; sprovazza@riag.ri.gov; Jennifer.Coronel@ilag.gov;
JHarrison@oag.state.va.us; McBirney, Jimmy (ATR) ; Barry, Kaitlyn (ATR) ; Briskin, Craig (ATR) ; Clemons, Katherine (ATR) ; Guarnera, Daniel (ATR) ; Choi, Stephanie (ATR) ; Lauren.Pomeroy@doj.ca.gov; locean@riag.ri.gov; Nakamura, Brent (ATR) ; Strick, Amanda (ATR) ; Daniel Bitton ;
Ali Vissichelli ; Dunn, Karen L ; Rhee, Jeannie S ; Isaacson, William A ; Bial, Joseph J ;
Dearborn, Meredith ; Morgan, Erin J ; Amy Mauser ; Goodman, Martha ; MAHR, Eric (EJM) ; MCCALLUM, Robert ; GARRETT, Tyler ; TU, Xiaoxi ; craig.reilly@ccreillylaw.com; EISMAN, Scott ; Milligan, Heather C ; MURRAY, Sean
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Narrowing 30(b)(6) notices
Aaron,
We are disappointed and concerned that the DOJ has not responded to our numerous requests over the past week for a
substantive proposal to narrow its 30(b)(6) notice. Doing so is the essential next step in making progress. We note that,
in a showing of good faith, even before receiving a proposal from Plaintiffs to narrow their 30(b)(6) notice, Google
proposed many accommodations to address Plaintiffs’ concerns with Google’s 30(b)(6) notice. We now look forward to
receiving Plaintiffs’ comprehensive proposal so that the parties can get to work implementing Judge Anderson’s guidance
towards narrowing the outstanding disputes. Please provide a date certain when we can expect that proposal.
With that said, we anticipate that the Court will find it more helpful to review briefs that address the parties’ positions
closer in time to next Friday’s hearing (rather than briefs that reflect positions taken before Plaintiffs have made a
substantive proposal), so Google would be willing to join the United States in a motion to extend the deadlines for (a)
Plaintiffs to respond to Google’s motion for a protective order to noon ET on Monday, August 28; and (b) Google’s reply to
9 pm ET on Wednesday, August 30. If you’re able to send the draft papers over, we will review them promptly.
Andy
From: Teitelbaum, Aaron (ATR)
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 1:15 PM
To: EWALT, Andrew (AJE)
Cc: Wood, Julia (ATR) ; ELMER, Julie (JSE) ; RHEE, Wang
Jae ; SALEM, Sara ; Freeman, Michael (ATR) ; dpearl@axinn.com; Garcia, Kelly (ATR) ; Wolin, Michael (ATR) ; Mene, Gerard (USAVAE) ; aferguson@oag.state.va.us;
spopps@oag.state.va.us; thenry@oag.state.va.us; kgallagher@oag.state.va.us; Brian Wang ;
2Page 4 PageID# Paula Blizzard ; bryn.williams@coag.gov; jan.zavislan@coag.gov;
steve.kaufmann@coag.gov; nicole.demers@ct.gov; yale.leber@law.njoag.gov; elinor.hoffmann@ag.ny.gov;
morgan.feder@ag.ny.gov; david.mcdowell@ag.tn.gov; ethan.bowers@ag.tn.gov; Vernon, Jeffrey (ATR) ; tyler.corcoran@ag.tn.gov; Elizabeth.Maxeiner@ilag.gov; jayme.weber@azag.gov;
cari.jeffries@ca.ag.gov; amy.hanson@atg.wa.gov; brandon.h.garod@doj.nh.gov; james.r.davis@doj.nh.gov;
douglas.l.davis@wvago.gov; joseph.conrad@nebraska.gov; jmcghee@ncdoj.gov; jmarx@ncdoj.gov; kchoksi@ncdoj.gov;
Tyler.Arnold@atg.wa.gov; kate.iiams@atg.wa.gov; colin.snider@nebraska.gov; zach.biesanz@ag.state.mn.us;
evansj@michigan.gov; mertenss@michigan.gov; sprovazza@riag.ri.gov; Jennifer.Coronel@ilag.gov;
JHarrison@oag.state.va.us; McBirney, Jimmy (ATR) ; Barry, Kaitlyn (ATR) ; Briskin, Craig (ATR) ; Clemons, Katherine (ATR) ; Guarnera, Daniel (ATR) ; Choi, Stephanie (ATR) ; Lauren.Pomeroy@doj.ca.gov; locean@riag.ri.gov; Nakamura, Brent (ATR) ; Strick, Amanda (ATR) ; Daniel Bitton ;
Ali Vissichelli ; Dunn, Karen L ; Rhee, Jeannie S ; Isaacson, William A ; Bial, Joseph J ;
Dearborn, Meredith ; Morgan, Erin J ; Amy Mauser ; Goodman, Martha ; MAHR, Eric (EJM) ; MCCALLUM, Robert ; GARRETT, Tyler ; TU, Xiaoxi ; craig.reilly@ccreillylaw.com; EISMAN, Scott ; Milligan, Heather C ; MURRAY, Sean
Subject: RE: Narrowing 30(b)(6) notices
Andy,
Thank you for your email. We will work to provide a written proposal to move our negotiations forward on our
respective 30(b)(6) notices as soon as we are able. To facilitate these discussions, we ask that you provide a proposal in
writing describing how Google intends to respond to Plaintiffs' Fifth set of Interrogatories and RFAs, which Google has
suggested are duplicative of topics covered in the 30(b)(6) notice. Your written objections to these Interrogatories and
RFAs do not suggest a willingness to provide substantive answers to any of these requests.
However, we are not inclined to agree to Google's terms for obtaining a deadline extension. As you know, drafting of
motion responses is a multi-day process. Learning of whether we might be able to jointly move the Court for an
extension at 2pm, three hours before the filing deadline, does not provide plaintiffs with any meaningful benefit.
Sincerely,
Aaron M. Teitelbaum
Senior Litigation Counsel | Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
450 Fifth Street NW
Washington, DC Mobile: (202) 894-
From: EWALT, Andrew (AJE)
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 10:19 PM
To: Teitelbaum, Aaron (ATR)
Cc: Wood, Julia (ATR) ; ELMER, Julie (JSE) ; RHEE, Wang
Jae ; SALEM, Sara ; Freeman, Michael (ATR) ; dpearl@axinn.com; Garcia, Kelly (ATR) ; Wolin, Michael (ATR) ; Mene, Gerard (USAVAE) ; aferguson@oag.state.va.us;
3Page 5 PageID# spopps@oag.state.va.us; thenry@oag.state.va.us; kgallagher@oag.state.va.us; Brian Wang ;
Paula Blizzard ; bryn.williams@coag.gov; jan.zavislan@coag.gov;
steve.kaufmann@coag.gov; nicole.demers@ct.gov; yale.leber@law.njoag.gov; elinor.hoffmann@ag.ny.gov;
morgan.feder@ag.ny.gov; david.mcdowell@ag.tn.gov; ethan.bowers@ag.tn.gov; Vernon, Jeffrey (ATR) ; tyler.corcoran@ag.tn.gov; Elizabeth.Maxeiner@ilag.gov; jayme.weber@azag.gov;
cari.jeffries@ca.ag.gov; amy.hanson@atg.wa.gov; brandon.h.garod@doj.nh.gov; james.r.davis@doj.nh.gov;
douglas.l.davis@wvago.gov; joseph.conrad@nebraska.gov; jmcghee@ncdoj.gov; jmarx@ncdoj.gov; kchoksi@ncdoj.gov;
Tyler.Arnold@atg.wa.gov; kate.iiams@atg.wa.gov; colin.snider@nebraska.gov; zach.biesanz@ag.state.mn.us;
evansj@michigan.gov; mertenss@michigan.gov; sprovazza@riag.ri.gov; Jennifer.Coronel@ilag.gov;
JHarrison@oag.state.va.us; McBirney, Jimmy (ATR) ; Barry, Kaitlyn (ATR) ; Briskin, Craig (ATR) ; Clemons, Katherine (ATR) ; Guarnera, Daniel (ATR) ; Choi, Stephanie (ATR) ; Lauren.Pomeroy@doj.ca.gov; locean@riag.ri.gov; Nakamura, Brent (ATR) ; Strick, Amanda (ATR) ; Daniel Bitton ;
Ali Vissichelli ; Dunn, Karen L ; Rhee, Jeannie S ; Isaacson, William A ; Bial, Joseph J ;
Dearborn, Meredith ; Morgan, Erin J ; Amy Mauser ; Goodman, Martha ; MAHR, Eric (EJM) ; MCCALLUM, Robert ; GARRETT, Tyler ; TU, Xiaoxi ; craig.reilly@ccreillylaw.com; EISMAN, Scott ; Milligan, Heather C ; MURRAY, Sean
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Narrowing 30(b)(6) notices
Aaron,
Google cannot agree to Plaintiffs’ proposal to adjust the briefing schedule on Google’s motion for a protective order to
give Plaintiffs more time to file their responsive brief and to adjust the briefing schedule on Plaintiffs’ motion for a
protective order to give Google less time to file its responsive brief. Nevertheless, Google remains open to discussing
ways to narrow the parties’ 30(b)(6) notices.
As to Plaintiffs’ 30(b)(6) notice, we agree with the observation in Judge Anderson’s Order from earlier today that
“discussion between the parties could further narrow the issues.” Indeed, Google has repeatedly explained its concerns
about Plaintiffs’ 30(b)(6) notice in written objections, meet-and-confers, a motion for a protective order, and again in our
discussions this afternoon. Google has also repeatedly asked Plaintiffs for a substantive proposal for narrowing their
30(b)(6) notice. As Plaintiffs have yet to respond substantively, Google requests that they make a comprehensive written
proposal describing what information from their 30(b)(6) notice they actually need from Google, “tak[ing] into account the
discovery that has been undertaken to date and issues of proportionality,” as well as the requirement that topics be
described with reasonable particularity. As described below, Google is prepared to make such concessions if Plaintiffs
do. If Plaintiffs are able to provide such a proposal by noon ET tomorrow, Google will consider the proposal in good faith
and inform Plaintiffs by 2 pm ET whether Google will join in a motion to extend the deadlines for (a) Plaintiffs to respond to
Google’s motion for a protective order to noon ET on Monday, August 28; and (b) Google’s reply to 9 pm ET on
Wednesday, August 30. To be clear, Google will join in a motion to extend the deadlines if Plaintiffs make a
comprehensive, good faith proposal on their 30(b)(6) notice in writing by noon tomorrow.
As to Google’s 30(b)(6) notice, as a sign of good faith and in order to continue to make progress toward resolving (or
narrowing) all issues in dispute, consistent with Judge Anderson’s guidance, and to accommodate the witness’s schedule,
Google is willing to make significant accommodations with respect to the portions of the notice related to the FAAs. First,
Google will agree to take the CMS corporate designee’s deposition on Friday, August 25, 2023, beginning at am. Second, Google will agree to narrow (i) the relevant period to January 1, 2019 to the present; and (ii) the definitions
of “You” and “Your” to encompass only the FAAs. Third, Google will agree to narrow the topics for the FAAs’ corporate
designees to the following topics: 2(b), 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 9, 10, 23, 26, 30, and 32. Fourth, Google will agree to further
narrow Topics 10, 23, and 26 as outlined below.
•
Topic 10: “Your proposed, attempted, and actual purchases of Display Online Advertising from any entity,
including Advertising Agencies or through Advertising Agencies, including the dates, quantities, types, price
quotes, actual prices, and terms and conditions of these purchases.”
4Page 6 PageID# •
Topic 23: “All receipts, invoices, purchase orders, evidencing Your purchase of Display Online Advertising,
including the amounts paid by You and the entity to whom You paid those amounts.”
•
Topic 26: “The prices paid or shared, in each specific instance, by You for any Display Online Advertising that
You contend was higher than You would have paid absent the alleged anticompetitive conduct alleged in the
Complaint, the specifications of those purchases, the amounts by which You contend those prices or shares were
higher, the specific injury that You allege You suffered because of the conduct alleged in the Complaint, and the
basis for Your contention.”
To be clear, the narrowing proposals described above would apply to all FAAs, and Google will move forward with these
topics on Friday with the CMS designee. However, as to all other FAA designees, our proposal is contingent upon the
parties making meaningful progress in the overall 30(b)(6) negotiations. Accordingly:
•
As to time limits: While the parties negotiate in good faith over reciprocal time limits, we agree that, whatever time
limits are ultimately agreed to between the parties, any time spent on the record with the CMS designee counts
against that total.
•
As to scheduling: Katherine Clemons’s email to Martha Goodman today confirmed that 3-4 FAA corporate
designees would be available on September 8. Please tell us which designees are available on September 8 so
we can evaluate.
•
As to the Air Force: We are also continuing to evaluate whether we can proceed with 30(b)(6) testimony of the Air
Force on August 30. Given the broader state of negotiations regarding 30(b)(6) testimony, and the United States’s
insistence that a hearing on these issues be held on September 1, we reserve all rights not to take 30(b)(6)
testimony of the Air Force on August 30.
For the avoidance of doubt, our proposal does not apply to the topics in Google’s 30(b)(6) notice that do not relate to the
FAAs, including those topics at issue in Plaintiffs’ motions for protective orders.
Finally, it is important to note that Ms. Clemons’s email omitted numerous aspects of the history of the parties’
negotiations over 30(b)(6) depositions of the FAAs. Ms. Goodman will respond separately to that email to correct the
record.
As this message should make clear, consistent with Judge Anderson’s guidance, Google is fully prepared to negotiate
with Plaintiffs to narrow the 30(b)(6) notices to cover what discovery is truly necessary. We hope that Plaintiffs will
likewise heed the Court’s guidance and provide a comprehensive written proposal for how to narrow their 30(b)(6) notice
to Google.
Andy
Andrew J. Ewalt
Partner
Pronouns: He/Him/His
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP
700 13th Street NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005-T +1 202 777 4591 | M +1 917 843 7995 | F +1 202 507 andrew.ewalt@freshfields.com
freshfields.com
This e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status.
Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it, use it
for any purpose or disclose its contents to any other person; to do so could be a breach of confidentiality. Thank you for
your cooperation. Please contact our IT Helpdesk at GlobalITServiceDesk@freshfields.com if you need assistance.
5Page 7 PageID# Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP has offices in New York, Silicon Valley and Washington, DC. Freshfields
Bruckhaus Deringer LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number
OC334789, and has offices or associated entities in Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, China, England, France, Germany, Hong
Kong, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Singapore, Spain, the United Arab Emirates and Vietnam.
Any reference to a partner means a member, or a consultant or employee with equivalent standing and qualifications, of
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP or any associated firms or entities.
For information about how Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer processes personal data please refer to this Privacy notice.
For further information about Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, please refer to our website at www.freshfields.com.
This e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status.
Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it, use it
for any purpose or disclose its contents to any other person; to do so could be a breach of confidentiality. Thank you for
your cooperation. Please contact our IT Helpdesk at GlobalITServiceDesk@freshfields.com if you need assistance.
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP has offices in New York, Silicon Valley and Washington, DC. Freshfields
Bruckhaus Deringer LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number
OC334789, and has offices or associated entities in Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, China, England, France, Germany, Hong
Kong, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Singapore, Spain, the United Arab Emirates and Vietnam.
Any reference to a partner means a member, or a consultant or employee with equivalent standing and qualifications, of
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP or any associated firms or entities.
For information about how Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer processes personal data please refer to this Privacy notice.
For further information about Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, please refer to our website at www.freshfields.com.
6
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 335-3 Filed 08/24/23 Page 1 of 7 PageID# 5096
EXHIBIT C
PDF Page 3
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 335-3 Filed 08/24/23 Page 2 of 7 PageID# 5097
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Teitelbaum, Aaron (ATR)
Wednesday, August 23, 2023 4:30 PM
EWALT, Andrew (AJE)
Wood, Julia (ATR); ELMER, Julie (JSE); RHEE, Wang Jae; SALEM, Sara; Freeman, Michael
(ATR); dpearl@axinn.com; Garcia, Kelly (ATR); Wolin, Michael (ATR); Mene, Gerard
(USAVAE); aferguson@oag.state.va.us; spopps@oag.state.va.us; thenry@oag.state.va.us;
kgallagher@oag.state.va.us; Brian Wang; Paula Blizzard; bryn.williams@coag.gov;
jan.zavislan@coag.gov; steve.kaufmann@coag.gov; nicole.demers@ct.gov;
yale.leber@law.njoag.gov; elinor.hoffmann@ag.ny.gov; morgan.feder@ag.ny.gov;
david.mcdowell@ag.tn.gov; ethan.bowers@ag.tn.gov; Vernon, Jeffrey (ATR);
tyler.corcoran@ag.tn.gov; Elizabeth.Maxeiner@ilag.gov; jayme.weber@azag.gov;
cari.jeffries@ca.ag.gov; amy.hanson@atg.wa.gov; brandon.h.garod@doj.nh.gov;
james.r.davis@doj.nh.gov; douglas.l.davis@wvago.gov; joseph.conrad@nebraska.gov;
jmcghee@ncdoj.gov; jmarx@ncdoj.gov; kchoksi@ncdoj.gov; Tyler.Arnold@atg.wa.gov;
kate.iiams@atg.wa.gov; colin.snider@nebraska.gov; zach.biesanz@ag.state.mn.us;
evansj@michigan.gov; mertenss@michigan.gov; sprovazza@riag.ri.gov;
Jennifer.Coronel@ilag.gov; JHarrison@oag.state.va.us; McBirney, Jimmy (ATR); Barry,
Kaitlyn (ATR); Briskin, Craig (ATR); Clemons, Katherine (ATR); Guarnera, Daniel (ATR);
Choi, Stephanie (ATR); Lauren.Pomeroy@doj.ca.gov; locean@riag.ri.gov; Nakamura,
Brent (ATR); Strick, Amanda (ATR); Daniel Bitton; Ali Vissichelli; Dunn, Karen L; Rhee,
Jeannie S; Isaacson, William A; Bial, Joseph J; Dearborn, Meredith; Morgan, Erin J; Amy
Mauser; Goodman, Martha; MAHR, Eric (EJM); MCCALLUM, Robert; GARRETT, Tyler; TU,
Xiaoxi; craig.reilly@ccreillylaw.com; EISMAN, Scott; Milligan, Heather C; MURRAY, Sean
RE: Narrowing 30(b)(6) notices
Andy,
As you and I discussed yesterday evening, plaintiffs were interested in seeking a continuance of the briefing schedule at
that point to allow both sides to focus additional energy on negotiations rather than briefing. Google's proposal, coming
shortly before plaintiffs' filing deadline, gives that additional respite only to Google and not to plaintiffs. We look
forward to continuing to negotiate with Google in the coming days, but we are not amenable to Google's offer to seek
an extension from the court now, after plaintiffs have expended significant time and effort (that could have been spent
negotiating) on preparing their filings.
We look forward to our continuing negotiations about the parties’ respective Rule 30(b)(6) notices.
Aaron M. Teitelbaum
Senior Litigation Counsel | Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
450 Fifth Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
Mobile: (202) 894-4266
From: EWALT, Andrew (AJE)
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 3:28 PM
To: Teitelbaum, Aaron (ATR)
1
PDF Page 4
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 335-3 Filed 08/24/23 Page 3 of 7 PageID# 5098
Cc: Wood, Julia (ATR) ; ELMER, Julie (JSE) ; RHEE, Wang
Jae ; SALEM, Sara ; Freeman, Michael (ATR)
; dpearl@axinn.com; Garcia, Kelly (ATR) ; Wolin, Michael (ATR)
; Mene, Gerard (USAVAE) ; aferguson@oag.state.va.us;
spopps@oag.state.va.us; thenry@oag.state.va.us; kgallagher@oag.state.va.us; Brian Wang ;
Paula Blizzard ; bryn.williams@coag.gov; jan.zavislan@coag.gov;
steve.kaufmann@coag.gov; nicole.demers@ct.gov; yale.leber@law.njoag.gov; elinor.hoffmann@ag.ny.gov;
morgan.feder@ag.ny.gov; david.mcdowell@ag.tn.gov; ethan.bowers@ag.tn.gov; Vernon, Jeffrey (ATR)
; tyler.corcoran@ag.tn.gov; Elizabeth.Maxeiner@ilag.gov; jayme.weber@azag.gov;
cari.jeffries@ca.ag.gov; amy.hanson@atg.wa.gov; brandon.h.garod@doj.nh.gov; james.r.davis@doj.nh.gov;
douglas.l.davis@wvago.gov; joseph.conrad@nebraska.gov; jmcghee@ncdoj.gov; jmarx@ncdoj.gov; kchoksi@ncdoj.gov;
Tyler.Arnold@atg.wa.gov; kate.iiams@atg.wa.gov; colin.snider@nebraska.gov; zach.biesanz@ag.state.mn.us;
evansj@michigan.gov; mertenss@michigan.gov; sprovazza@riag.ri.gov; Jennifer.Coronel@ilag.gov;
JHarrison@oag.state.va.us; McBirney, Jimmy (ATR) ; Barry, Kaitlyn (ATR)
; Briskin, Craig (ATR) ; Clemons, Katherine (ATR)
; Guarnera, Daniel (ATR) ; Choi, Stephanie (ATR)
; Lauren.Pomeroy@doj.ca.gov; locean@riag.ri.gov; Nakamura, Brent (ATR)
; Strick, Amanda (ATR) ; Daniel Bitton ;
Ali Vissichelli ; Dunn, Karen L ; Rhee, Jeannie S
; Isaacson, William A ; Bial, Joseph J ;
Dearborn, Meredith ; Morgan, Erin J ; Amy Mauser
; Goodman, Martha ; MAHR, Eric (EJM)
; MCCALLUM, Robert ; GARRETT, Tyler
; TU, Xiaoxi ; craig.reilly@ccreillylaw.com; EISMAN, Scott
; Milligan, Heather C ; MURRAY, Sean
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Narrowing 30(b)(6) notices
Aaron,
We are disappointed and concerned that the DOJ has not responded to our numerous requests over the past week for a
substantive proposal to narrow its 30(b)(6) notice. Doing so is the essential next step in making progress. We note that,
in a showing of good faith, even before receiving a proposal from Plaintiffs to narrow their 30(b)(6) notice, Google
proposed many accommodations to address Plaintiffs’ concerns with Google’s 30(b)(6) notice. We now look forward to
receiving Plaintiffs’ comprehensive proposal so that the parties can get to work implementing Judge Anderson’s guidance
towards narrowing the outstanding disputes. Please provide a date certain when we can expect that proposal.
With that said, we anticipate that the Court will find it more helpful to review briefs that address the parties’ positions
closer in time to next Friday’s hearing (rather than briefs that reflect positions taken before Plaintiffs have made a
substantive proposal), so Google would be willing to join the United States in a motion to extend the deadlines for (a)
Plaintiffs to respond to Google’s motion for a protective order to noon ET on Monday, August 28; and (b) Google’s reply to
9 pm ET on Wednesday, August 30. If you’re able to send the draft papers over, we will review them promptly.
Andy
From: Teitelbaum, Aaron (ATR)
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 1:15 PM
To: EWALT, Andrew (AJE)
Cc: Wood, Julia (ATR) ; ELMER, Julie (JSE) ; RHEE, Wang
Jae ; SALEM, Sara ; Freeman, Michael (ATR)
; dpearl@axinn.com; Garcia, Kelly (ATR) ; Wolin, Michael (ATR)
; Mene, Gerard (USAVAE) ; aferguson@oag.state.va.us;
spopps@oag.state.va.us; thenry@oag.state.va.us; kgallagher@oag.state.va.us; Brian Wang ;
2
PDF Page 5
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 335-3 Filed 08/24/23 Page 4 of 7 PageID# 5099
Paula Blizzard ; bryn.williams@coag.gov; jan.zavislan@coag.gov;
steve.kaufmann@coag.gov; nicole.demers@ct.gov; yale.leber@law.njoag.gov; elinor.hoffmann@ag.ny.gov;
morgan.feder@ag.ny.gov; david.mcdowell@ag.tn.gov; ethan.bowers@ag.tn.gov; Vernon, Jeffrey (ATR)
; tyler.corcoran@ag.tn.gov; Elizabeth.Maxeiner@ilag.gov; jayme.weber@azag.gov;
cari.jeffries@ca.ag.gov; amy.hanson@atg.wa.gov; brandon.h.garod@doj.nh.gov; james.r.davis@doj.nh.gov;
douglas.l.davis@wvago.gov; joseph.conrad@nebraska.gov; jmcghee@ncdoj.gov; jmarx@ncdoj.gov; kchoksi@ncdoj.gov;
Tyler.Arnold@atg.wa.gov; kate.iiams@atg.wa.gov; colin.snider@nebraska.gov; zach.biesanz@ag.state.mn.us;
evansj@michigan.gov; mertenss@michigan.gov; sprovazza@riag.ri.gov; Jennifer.Coronel@ilag.gov;
JHarrison@oag.state.va.us; McBirney, Jimmy (ATR) ; Barry, Kaitlyn (ATR)
; Briskin, Craig (ATR) ; Clemons, Katherine (ATR)
; Guarnera, Daniel (ATR) ; Choi, Stephanie (ATR)
; Lauren.Pomeroy@doj.ca.gov; locean@riag.ri.gov; Nakamura, Brent (ATR)
; Strick, Amanda (ATR) ; Daniel Bitton ;
Ali Vissichelli ; Dunn, Karen L ; Rhee, Jeannie S
; Isaacson, William A ; Bial, Joseph J ;
Dearborn, Meredith ; Morgan, Erin J ; Amy Mauser
; Goodman, Martha ; MAHR, Eric (EJM)
; MCCALLUM, Robert ; GARRETT, Tyler
; TU, Xiaoxi ; craig.reilly@ccreillylaw.com; EISMAN, Scott
; Milligan, Heather C ; MURRAY, Sean
Subject: RE: Narrowing 30(b)(6) notices
Andy,
Thank you for your email. We will work to provide a written proposal to move our negotiations forward on our
respective 30(b)(6) notices as soon as we are able. To facilitate these discussions, we ask that you provide a proposal in
writing describing how Google intends to respond to Plaintiffs' Fifth set of Interrogatories and RFAs, which Google has
suggested are duplicative of topics covered in the 30(b)(6) notice. Your written objections to these Interrogatories and
RFAs do not suggest a willingness to provide substantive answers to any of these requests.
However, we are not inclined to agree to Google's terms for obtaining a deadline extension. As you know, drafting of
motion responses is a multi-day process. Learning of whether we might be able to jointly move the Court for an
extension at 2pm, three hours before the filing deadline, does not provide plaintiffs with any meaningful benefit.
Sincerely,
Aaron M. Teitelbaum
Senior Litigation Counsel | Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
450 Fifth Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
Mobile: (202) 894-4266
From: EWALT, Andrew (AJE)
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 10:19 PM
To: Teitelbaum, Aaron (ATR)
Cc: Wood, Julia (ATR) ; ELMER, Julie (JSE) ; RHEE, Wang
Jae ; SALEM, Sara ; Freeman, Michael (ATR)
; dpearl@axinn.com; Garcia, Kelly (ATR) ; Wolin, Michael (ATR)
; Mene, Gerard (USAVAE) ; aferguson@oag.state.va.us;
3
PDF Page 6
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 335-3 Filed 08/24/23 Page 5 of 7 PageID# 5100
spopps@oag.state.va.us; thenry@oag.state.va.us; kgallagher@oag.state.va.us; Brian Wang ;
Paula Blizzard ; bryn.williams@coag.gov; jan.zavislan@coag.gov;
steve.kaufmann@coag.gov; nicole.demers@ct.gov; yale.leber@law.njoag.gov; elinor.hoffmann@ag.ny.gov;
morgan.feder@ag.ny.gov; david.mcdowell@ag.tn.gov; ethan.bowers@ag.tn.gov; Vernon, Jeffrey (ATR)
; tyler.corcoran@ag.tn.gov; Elizabeth.Maxeiner@ilag.gov; jayme.weber@azag.gov;
cari.jeffries@ca.ag.gov; amy.hanson@atg.wa.gov; brandon.h.garod@doj.nh.gov; james.r.davis@doj.nh.gov;
douglas.l.davis@wvago.gov; joseph.conrad@nebraska.gov; jmcghee@ncdoj.gov; jmarx@ncdoj.gov; kchoksi@ncdoj.gov;
Tyler.Arnold@atg.wa.gov; kate.iiams@atg.wa.gov; colin.snider@nebraska.gov; zach.biesanz@ag.state.mn.us;
evansj@michigan.gov; mertenss@michigan.gov; sprovazza@riag.ri.gov; Jennifer.Coronel@ilag.gov;
JHarrison@oag.state.va.us; McBirney, Jimmy (ATR) ; Barry, Kaitlyn (ATR)
; Briskin, Craig (ATR) ; Clemons, Katherine (ATR)
; Guarnera, Daniel (ATR) ; Choi, Stephanie (ATR)
; Lauren.Pomeroy@doj.ca.gov; locean@riag.ri.gov; Nakamura, Brent (ATR)
; Strick, Amanda (ATR) ; Daniel Bitton ;
Ali Vissichelli ; Dunn, Karen L ; Rhee, Jeannie S
; Isaacson, William A ; Bial, Joseph J ;
Dearborn, Meredith ; Morgan, Erin J ; Amy Mauser
; Goodman, Martha ; MAHR, Eric (EJM)
; MCCALLUM, Robert ; GARRETT, Tyler
; TU, Xiaoxi ; craig.reilly@ccreillylaw.com; EISMAN, Scott
; Milligan, Heather C ; MURRAY, Sean
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Narrowing 30(b)(6) notices
Aaron,
Google cannot agree to Plaintiffs’ proposal to adjust the briefing schedule on Google’s motion for a protective order to
give Plaintiffs more time to file their responsive brief and to adjust the briefing schedule on Plaintiffs’ motion for a
protective order to give Google less time to file its responsive brief. Nevertheless, Google remains open to discussing
ways to narrow the parties’ 30(b)(6) notices.
As to Plaintiffs’ 30(b)(6) notice, we agree with the observation in Judge Anderson’s Order from earlier today that
“discussion between the parties could further narrow the issues.” Indeed, Google has repeatedly explained its concerns
about Plaintiffs’ 30(b)(6) notice in written objections, meet-and-confers, a motion for a protective order, and again in our
discussions this afternoon. Google has also repeatedly asked Plaintiffs for a substantive proposal for narrowing their
30(b)(6) notice. As Plaintiffs have yet to respond substantively, Google requests that they make a comprehensive written
proposal describing what information from their 30(b)(6) notice they actually need from Google, “tak[ing] into account the
discovery that has been undertaken to date and issues of proportionality,” as well as the requirement that topics be
described with reasonable particularity. As described below, Google is prepared to make such concessions if Plaintiffs
do. If Plaintiffs are able to provide such a proposal by noon ET tomorrow, Google will consider the proposal in good faith
and inform Plaintiffs by 2 pm ET whether Google will join in a motion to extend the deadlines for (a) Plaintiffs to respond to
Google’s motion for a protective order to noon ET on Monday, August 28; and (b) Google’s reply to 9 pm ET on
Wednesday, August 30. To be clear, Google will join in a motion to extend the deadlines if Plaintiffs make a
comprehensive, good faith proposal on their 30(b)(6) notice in writing by noon tomorrow.
As to Google’s 30(b)(6) notice, as a sign of good faith and in order to continue to make progress toward resolving (or
narrowing) all issues in dispute, consistent with Judge Anderson’s guidance, and to accommodate the witness’s schedule,
Google is willing to make significant accommodations with respect to the portions of the notice related to the FAAs. First,
Google will agree to take the CMS corporate designee’s deposition on Friday, August 25, 2023, beginning at 9
am. Second, Google will agree to narrow (i) the relevant period to January 1, 2019 to the present; and (ii) the definitions
of “You” and “Your” to encompass only the FAAs. Third, Google will agree to narrow the topics for the FAAs’ corporate
designees to the following topics: 2(b), 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 9, 10, 23, 26, 30, and 32. Fourth, Google will agree to further
narrow Topics 10, 23, and 26 as outlined below.
•
Topic 10: “Your proposed, attempted, and actual purchases of Display Online Advertising from any entity,
including Advertising Agencies or through Advertising Agencies, including the dates, quantities, types, price
quotes, actual prices, and terms and conditions of these purchases.”
4
PDF Page 7
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 335-3 Filed 08/24/23 Page 6 of 7 PageID# 5101
•
Topic 23: “All receipts, invoices, purchase orders, evidencing Your purchase of Display Online Advertising,
including the amounts paid by You and the entity to whom You paid those amounts.”
•
Topic 26: “The prices paid or shared, in each specific instance, by You for any Display Online Advertising that
You contend was higher than You would have paid absent the alleged anticompetitive conduct alleged in the
Complaint, the specifications of those purchases, the amounts by which You contend those prices or shares were
higher, the specific injury that You allege You suffered because of the conduct alleged in the Complaint, and the
basis for Your contention.”
To be clear, the narrowing proposals described above would apply to all FAAs, and Google will move forward with these
topics on Friday with the CMS designee. However, as to all other FAA designees, our proposal is contingent upon the
parties making meaningful progress in the overall 30(b)(6) negotiations. Accordingly:
•
As to time limits: While the parties negotiate in good faith over reciprocal time limits, we agree that, whatever time
limits are ultimately agreed to between the parties, any time spent on the record with the CMS designee counts
against that total.
•
As to scheduling: Katherine Clemons’s email to Martha Goodman today confirmed that 3-4 FAA corporate
designees would be available on September 8. Please tell us which designees are available on September 8 so
we can evaluate.
•
As to the Air Force: We are also continuing to evaluate whether we can proceed with 30(b)(6) testimony of the Air
Force on August 30. Given the broader state of negotiations regarding 30(b)(6) testimony, and the United States’s
insistence that a hearing on these issues be held on September 1, we reserve all rights not to take 30(b)(6)
testimony of the Air Force on August 30.
For the avoidance of doubt, our proposal does not apply to the topics in Google’s 30(b)(6) notice that do not relate to the
FAAs, including those topics at issue in Plaintiffs’ motions for protective orders.
Finally, it is important to note that Ms. Clemons’s email omitted numerous aspects of the history of the parties’
negotiations over 30(b)(6) depositions of the FAAs. Ms. Goodman will respond separately to that email to correct the
record.
As this message should make clear, consistent with Judge Anderson’s guidance, Google is fully prepared to negotiate
with Plaintiffs to narrow the 30(b)(6) notices to cover what discovery is truly necessary. We hope that Plaintiffs will
likewise heed the Court’s guidance and provide a comprehensive written proposal for how to narrow their 30(b)(6) notice
to Google.
Andy
Andrew J. Ewalt
Partner
Pronouns: He/Him/His
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP
700 13th Street NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005-3960
T +1 202 777 4591 | M +1 917 843 7995 | F +1 202 507 5991
andrew.ewalt@freshfields.com
freshfields.com
This e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status.
Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it, use it
for any purpose or disclose its contents to any other person; to do so could be a breach of confidentiality. Thank you for
your cooperation. Please contact our IT Helpdesk at GlobalITServiceDesk@freshfields.com if you need assistance.
5
PDF Page 8
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 335-3 Filed 08/24/23 Page 7 of 7 PageID# 5102
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP has offices in New York, Silicon Valley and Washington, DC. Freshfields
Bruckhaus Deringer LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number
OC334789, and has offices or associated entities in Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, China, England, France, Germany, Hong
Kong, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Singapore, Spain, the United Arab Emirates and Vietnam.
Any reference to a partner means a member, or a consultant or employee with equivalent standing and qualifications, of
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP or any associated firms or entities.
For information about how Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer processes personal data please refer to this Privacy notice.
For further information about Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, please refer to our website at www.freshfields.com.
This e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status.
Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it, use it
for any purpose or disclose its contents to any other person; to do so could be a breach of confidentiality. Thank you for
your cooperation. Please contact our IT Helpdesk at GlobalITServiceDesk@freshfields.com if you need assistance.
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP has offices in New York, Silicon Valley and Washington, DC. Freshfields
Bruckhaus Deringer LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number
OC334789, and has offices or associated entities in Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, China, England, France, Germany, Hong
Kong, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Singapore, Spain, the United Arab Emirates and Vietnam.
Any reference to a partner means a member, or a consultant or employee with equivalent standing and qualifications, of
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP or any associated firms or entities.
For information about how Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer processes personal data please refer to this Privacy notice.
For further information about Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, please refer to our website at www.freshfields.com.
6
Back to 
