RESPONSE to Motion re [314] MOTION to Seal re Doc. 305 & 307 filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 4 (redacted), # (2) Exhibit 11 (redacted), # (3) Exhibit 12 (redacted), # (4) Exhibit 13 (redacted))(Teitelbaum, Aaron)
Page 1 PageID# CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
UNITED STATES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-IDD
PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT
GOOGLE LLC’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO THE UNITED STATES
Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 26(c) of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Plaintiff United States of America
(“United States”) provides the following responses to Defendant Google LLC’s (“Google’s”)
First Set of Interrogatories to the United States (the “Responses”). These Responses are subject
to the United States’ Objections to Defendant Google LLC’s First Set of Interrogatories to the
United States (the “Objections”), which the United States previously served on Google in this
action. For clarity, the United States’ Objections are restated herein.
OBJECTIONS APPLICABLE TO EACH INTERROGATORY
1.
The United States objects to any interrogatory that includes multiple discrete
subparts but purports to be a single interrogatory. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1), each discrete
subpart is counted as a separate interrogatory. Further, the Joint Discovery Plan permits Google
to serve no more than 30 interrogatories “in total” on all Plaintiffs. (See Dkt. 87, ¶ 6.B.; Dkt. 94,
¶ 3.) Google has served over 30 different interrogatories on Plaintiffs (counted by totaling the
interrogatories served on the United States and State Plaintiffs with each discrete subpart
properly counted as a separate interrogatory), in violation of the Joint Discovery Plan. ThePage 2 PageID# HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX C: U.S. NAVY
INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Separately for each agency and department of the United States
that is a “buyer[] of open web display advertising” (as alleged in Paragraph 341 of Your
complaint) or has used Ad Tech Products or Display Advertising during the Relevant Period,
provide the following information about each Ad Tech Product (whether provided by Google or
any other Ad Tech Provider) that the agency or department used:
a. the type of Ad Tech Product used;
b. the Ad Tech Provider;
c. the amount of ad spend by month;
d. the amount of Fees or Take Rate by month;
e. the dates during which the Ad Tech Product was used;
f. all reasons for using and/or switching from one Ad Tech Product to another; and
g. if applicable, all reasons for ceasing use of the Ad Tech Product.
Response to Interrogatory No. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Navy responds as follows.
The Navy relies on its ad agency VMLY&R to manage and operate various ad tech
platforms to purchase digital media on the Navy’s behalf. To the extent the Navy has
information responsive to these interrogatories, that information would be found in reports
VMLY&R provides to the Navy. Plaintiff will supplement this response as necessary to identify
documents responsive to these interrogatories once those documents have been produced.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Separately for each agency and department of the United States
that is a “buyer[] of open web display advertising” (as alleged in Paragraph 341 of Your
complaint) or has used Ad Tech Products or Display Advertising during the Relevant Period,
identify each account associated with each Ad Tech Product used and provide:
a. the dates during which each account was in use;
b. all entities associated with each account;
c. all account IDs (e.g., Google Customer IDs) associated with each account; and
d. the individuals and entities, including external advertising Agencies, that had
responsibility for and access to each account and the contact information for each
individual and entity.
Response to Interrogatory No. 5Page 3 PageID# HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Navy responds as follows.
The Navy relies on its ad agency VMLY&R to manage and operate various ad tech
platforms to purchase digital media on the Navy’s behalf. The Navy’s points of contact at
VMLY&R with respect to ad tech platforms used to purchase advertising on the Navy’s behalf
are Chris Edmonson and Sandra Muoio.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Separately for each agency and department of the United States
that is a “buyer[] of open web display advertising” (as alleged in Paragraph 341 of Your
complaint) or has used Ad Tech Products or Display Advertising during the Relevant Period,
describe how each agency and department determines return on investment or return on
advertising spend.
Response to Interrogatory No. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Navy responds as follows.
The Navy works in conjunction with its ad agency VMLY&R to analyze return on ad
spend. The Navy communicates with its ad agency on an ongoing basis to monitor key
performance indicators, including but not limited to impressions, engagements, gross leads,
program eligible leads, qualified and interested leads, contracts, conversion rates and other
related metrics implicating whether or not a particular individual takes action upon seeing a
digital advertisement. The ad agency’s monthly reporting to the Navy includes other metrics
such as website visits, pageviews, web calls to action taken on the site, cost per lead, recruiting
station walk-in trends, as well as diversity trends.
INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Separately for each agency and department of the United States
that is a “buyer[] of open web display advertising” (as alleged in Paragraph 341 of Your
complaint) or has used Ad Tech Products or Display Advertising during the Relevant Period,
describe the impact of Header Bidding on its Display Advertising strategy or the cost
effectiveness of its Display Advertising.
Response to Interrogatory No. 7Page 4 PageID# HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Navy responds as follows.
The Navy does not have any specific understanding of how, if at all, Header Bidding
impacts its Display Advertising strategy or cost effectiveness of its display advertising strategy.
INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Separately for each agency and department of the United States
that is a “buyer[] of open web display advertising” (as alleged in Paragraph 341 of Your
complaint) or has used Ad Tech Products or Display Advertising during the Relevant Period,
describe the Properties on which Display Advertisements have been placed, including any
restrictions on the placement of Display Advertisements and any applicable criteria, settings, or
parameters, or any instructions given to Agencies or Ad Tech Providers regarding the placement
of Display Advertisements.
Response to Interrogatory No Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Navy responds as follows.
While the Navy reviews and concurs or disagrees with the media buying plan presented
by VMLY&R, the Navy does not direct VMLY&R to use or not use a specific vendor or
method, setting, or buying criteria. However, Navy and VMLY&R both ensure that ad
placement maintains brand safety such that ads are not placed nor recommended to be placed on
sites or along assets that would be considered salacious, controversial, or political.
Regarding criteria and parameters, the Navy provides appropriate age, citizenship, and
education criteria for content that is meant to specifically target a demographic to ensure that the
right/eligible audience receives the message for the program being advertised.
INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Provide a computation of the damages You seek in Paragraph
342(5) of Your complaint, including the names of and key contacts at each agency or department
of the United States to which the damages computation applies, and the date range for the
computation.
Response to Interrogatory No. 9Page 5 PageID# 5167Page 6 PageID# 5168Page 7 PageID# 5169Page 8 PageID# 5170Page 9 PageID# HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX D: THE CENSUS BUREAU
INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Separately for each agency and department of the United States
that is a “buyer[] of open web display advertising” (as alleged in Paragraph 341 of Your
complaint) or has used Ad Tech Products or Display Advertising during the Relevant Period,
provide the following information about each Ad Tech Product (whether provided by Google or
any other Ad Tech Provider) that the agency or department used:
a. the type of Ad Tech Product used;
b. the Ad Tech Provider;
c. the amount of ad spend by month;
d. the amount of Fees or Take Rate by month;
e. the dates during which the Ad Tech Product was used;
f. all reasons for using and/or switching from one Ad Tech Product to another; and
g. if applicable, all reasons for ceasing use of the Ad Tech Product.
Response to Interrogatory No. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Census Bureau responds as
follows.
The Census Bureau relies on its ad agencies’ expertise to manage and operate various ad
tech platforms in the process of purchasing digital advertising on the Census Bureau’s behalf.
To the extent the Census Bureau has information responsive to these interrogatories, that
information would be found in reports its ad agencies provided to the Census Bureau. Plaintiff
will supplement this response as necessary to identify documents responsive to these
interrogatories once those documents have been produced.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Separately for each agency and department of the United States
that is a “buyer[] of open web display advertising” (as alleged in Paragraph 341 of Your
complaint) or has used Ad Tech Products or Display Advertising during the Relevant Period,
identify each account associated with each Ad Tech Product used and provide:
a. the dates during which each account was in use;
b. all entities associated with each account;
c. all account IDs (e.g., Google Customer IDs) associated with each account; and
d. the individuals and entities, including external advertising Agencies, that had
responsibility for and access to each account and the contact information for each
individual and entity.
1Page 10 PageID# HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Response to Interrogatory No. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Census Bureau responds as
follows.
The Census Bureau relies on its ad agencies’ expertise to manage and operate various ad
tech platforms to purchase digital media on the Census Bureau’s behalf. The Census Bureau’s
point of contact at its ad agencies with respect to the ad tech platforms used to purchase
advertising on the Census Bureau’s behalf is Jack Benson (jbenson@reingold.com), Partner at
Reingold, Inc.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Separately for each agency and department of the United States
that is a “buyer[] of open web display advertising” (as alleged in Paragraph 341 of Your
complaint) or has used Ad Tech Products or Display Advertising during the Relevant Period,
describe how each agency and department determines return on investment or return on
advertising spend.
Response to Interrogatory No. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Census Bureau responds as
follows.
The Census Bureau did not, as a matter of course, conduct any formal assessments of
return on investment or return on advertising spend with respect to Ad Tech Products or Display
Advertising. Rather, the Census Bureau received reports from its ad agencies, retained to
provide expertise and execute on the Census Bureau’s advertising strategy. The reports analyzed
the performance of the Census Bureau’s advertising across different channels based on a number
of factors, including comparing the number of planned impressions against actual impressions,
the total number of impressions, and click-through rates to the Census survey instrument. The
Census Bureau also held weekly status meetings with its advertising agencies to asses the
performance of its advertising campaigns.
2Page 11 PageID# HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Separately for each agency and department of the United States
that is a “buyer[] of open web display advertising” (as alleged in Paragraph 341 of Your
complaint) or has used Ad Tech Products or Display Advertising during the Relevant Period,
describe the impact of Header Bidding on its Display Advertising strategy or the cost
effectiveness of its Display Advertising.
Response to Interrogatory No. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Census Bureau responds as
follows.
The Census Bureau does not have sufficient information or technical expertise to
determine whether or how header bidding has impacted its display advertising strategy or the
cost effectiveness of its display advertising.
INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Separately for each agency and department of the United States
that is a “buyer[] of open web display advertising” (as alleged in Paragraph 341 of Your
complaint) or has used Ad Tech Products or Display Advertising during the Relevant Period,
describe the Properties on which Display Advertisements have been placed, including any
restrictions on the placement of Display Advertisements and any applicable criteria, settings, or
parameters, or any instructions given to Agencies or Ad Tech Providers regarding the placement
of Display Advertisements.
Response to Interrogatory No Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Census Bureau responds as
follows.
The Census Bureau instructed its advertising agencies not to purchase advertising
placements in certain circumstances. Those instructions were amended or adjusted from time to
time according to the Census Bureau’s advertising needs and evolving circumstances, including
the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiff will supplement this response as necessary to
identify documents responsive to this interrogatory once those documents are produced.
3Page 12 PageID# 5174Page 13 PageID# 5175Page 14 PageID# 5176Page 15 PageID# 5177Page 16 PageID# HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX G: USPS RESPONSES
INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Separately for each agency and department of the United States
that is a “buyer[] of open web display advertising” (as alleged in Paragraph 341 of Your
complaint) or has used Ad Tech Products or Display Advertising during the Relevant Period,
provide the following information about each Ad Tech Product (whether provided by Google or
any other Ad Tech Provider) that the agency or department used:
a. the type of Ad Tech Product used;
b. the Ad Tech Provider;
c. the amount of ad spend by month;
d. the amount of Fees or Take Rate by month;
e. the dates during which the Ad Tech Product was used;
f. all reasons for using and/or switching from one Ad Tech Product to another; and
g. if applicable, all reasons for ceasing use of the Ad Tech Product.
Response to Interrogatory No. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, USPS responds as follows.
USPS relies on its ad agency Universal McCann’s expertise to manage and operate
various ad tech platforms to purchase digital media on USPS’s behalf, including but not limited
to DV360, Google Search Ads 360, Google Ads, and The Trade Desk. To the extent USPS has
information responsive to these interrogatories, that information would be found in reports
Universal McCann provides to USPS. Plaintiff will supplement this response as necessary to
identify documents responsive to these interrogatories once those documents have been
produced.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Separately for each agency and department of the United States
that is a “buyer[] of open web display advertising” (as alleged in Paragraph 341 of Your
complaint) or has used Ad Tech Products or Display Advertising during the Relevant Period,
identify each account associated with each Ad Tech Product used and provide:
a. the dates during which each account was in use;
b. all entities associated with each account;
c. all account IDs (e.g., Google Customer IDs) associated with each account; and
d. the individuals and entities, including external advertising Agencies, that had
responsibility for and access to each account and the contact information for each
individual and entity.
1Page 17 PageID# HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Response to Interrogatory No. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, USPS responds as follows.
USPS relies on its ad agency Universal McCann’s expertise to manage and operate
various ad tech platforms to purchase digital media on USPS’s behalf, including but not limited
to DV360, Google Search Ads 360, Google Ads, and The Trade Desk. USPS’s point of contact
at Universal McCann with respect to the ad tech platforms used to purchase advertising on
USPS’s behalf is Michael Knopf (
). Current employees with access
to DV360 include Michael Bottenberg and Matthew Petrowski.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Separately for each agency and department of the United States
that is a “buyer[] of open web display advertising” (as alleged in Paragraph 341 of Your
complaint) or has used Ad Tech Products or Display Advertising during the Relevant Period,
describe how each agency and department determines return on investment or return on
advertising spend.
Response to Interrogatory No. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, USPS responds as follows.
USPS’s assessment of return on investment or return on advertising spend is ad-campaign
dependent. For example, for business-focused lead generation campaigns, USPS primarily
assesses
For brand-equity campaigns that target both businesses
and consumers, USPS uses
in conjunction with consumer sentiment metrics to measure
success.
compares the cost of advertising against the revenue generated as a result of that
advertising. With respect to the cost of advertising, the most common key performance
indicators USPS uses include
. With
respect to revenue, USPS calculates revenue attribution to a particular ad campaign in two ways.
2Page 18 PageID# HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Separately for each agency and department of the United States
that is a “buyer[] of open web display advertising” (as alleged in Paragraph 341 of Your
complaint) or has used Ad Tech Products or Display Advertising during the Relevant Period,
describe the impact of Header Bidding on its Display Advertising strategy or the cost
effectiveness of its Display Advertising.
Response to Interrogatory No. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, USPS responds as follows.
3Page 19 PageID# 5181Page 20 PageID# 5182Page 21 PageID# 5183Page 22 PageID# 5184Page 23 PageID# 5185
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 348-2 Filed 08/25/23 Page 1 of 23 PageID# 5163
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
UNITED STATES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-IDD
PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT
GOOGLE LLC’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO THE UNITED STATES
Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 26(c) of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Plaintiff United States of America
(“United States”) provides the following responses to Defendant Google LLC’s (“Google’s”)
First Set of Interrogatories to the United States (the “Responses”). These Responses are subject
to the United States’ Objections to Defendant Google LLC’s First Set of Interrogatories to the
United States (the “Objections”), which the United States previously served on Google in this
action. For clarity, the United States’ Objections are restated herein.
OBJECTIONS APPLICABLE TO EACH INTERROGATORY
1.
The United States objects to any interrogatory that includes multiple discrete
subparts but purports to be a single interrogatory. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1), each discrete
subpart is counted as a separate interrogatory. Further, the Joint Discovery Plan permits Google
to serve no more than 30 interrogatories “in total” on all Plaintiffs. (See Dkt. 87, ¶ 6.B.; Dkt. 94,
¶ 3.) Google has served over 30 different interrogatories on Plaintiffs (counted by totaling the
interrogatories served on the United States and State Plaintiffs with each discrete subpart
properly counted as a separate interrogatory), in violation of the Joint Discovery Plan. The
PDF Page 3
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 348-2 Filed 08/25/23 Page 2 of 23 PageID# 5164
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX C: U.S. NAVY
INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Separately for each agency and department of the United States
that is a “buyer[] of open web display advertising” (as alleged in Paragraph 341 of Your
complaint) or has used Ad Tech Products or Display Advertising during the Relevant Period,
provide the following information about each Ad Tech Product (whether provided by Google or
any other Ad Tech Provider) that the agency or department used:
a. the type of Ad Tech Product used;
b. the Ad Tech Provider;
c. the amount of ad spend by month;
d. the amount of Fees or Take Rate by month;
e. the dates during which the Ad Tech Product was used;
f. all reasons for using and/or switching from one Ad Tech Product to another; and
g. if applicable, all reasons for ceasing use of the Ad Tech Product.
Response to Interrogatory No. 4
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Navy responds as follows.
The Navy relies on its ad agency VMLY&R to manage and operate various ad tech
platforms to purchase digital media on the Navy’s behalf. To the extent the Navy has
information responsive to these interrogatories, that information would be found in reports
VMLY&R provides to the Navy. Plaintiff will supplement this response as necessary to identify
documents responsive to these interrogatories once those documents have been produced.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Separately for each agency and department of the United States
that is a “buyer[] of open web display advertising” (as alleged in Paragraph 341 of Your
complaint) or has used Ad Tech Products or Display Advertising during the Relevant Period,
identify each account associated with each Ad Tech Product used and provide:
a. the dates during which each account was in use;
b. all entities associated with each account;
c. all account IDs (e.g., Google Customer IDs) associated with each account; and
d. the individuals and entities, including external advertising Agencies, that had
responsibility for and access to each account and the contact information for each
individual and entity.
Response to Interrogatory No. 5
PDF Page 4
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 348-2 Filed 08/25/23 Page 3 of 23 PageID# 5165
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Navy responds as follows.
The Navy relies on its ad agency VMLY&R to manage and operate various ad tech
platforms to purchase digital media on the Navy’s behalf. The Navy’s points of contact at
VMLY&R with respect to ad tech platforms used to purchase advertising on the Navy’s behalf
are Chris Edmonson and Sandra Muoio.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Separately for each agency and department of the United States
that is a “buyer[] of open web display advertising” (as alleged in Paragraph 341 of Your
complaint) or has used Ad Tech Products or Display Advertising during the Relevant Period,
describe how each agency and department determines return on investment or return on
advertising spend.
Response to Interrogatory No. 6
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Navy responds as follows.
The Navy works in conjunction with its ad agency VMLY&R to analyze return on ad
spend. The Navy communicates with its ad agency on an ongoing basis to monitor key
performance indicators, including but not limited to impressions, engagements, gross leads,
program eligible leads, qualified and interested leads, contracts, conversion rates and other
related metrics implicating whether or not a particular individual takes action upon seeing a
digital advertisement. The ad agency’s monthly reporting to the Navy includes other metrics
such as website visits, pageviews, web calls to action taken on the site, cost per lead, recruiting
station walk-in trends, as well as diversity trends.
INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Separately for each agency and department of the United States
that is a “buyer[] of open web display advertising” (as alleged in Paragraph 341 of Your
complaint) or has used Ad Tech Products or Display Advertising during the Relevant Period,
describe the impact of Header Bidding on its Display Advertising strategy or the cost
effectiveness of its Display Advertising.
Response to Interrogatory No. 7
PDF Page 5
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 348-2 Filed 08/25/23 Page 4 of 23 PageID# 5166
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Navy responds as follows.
The Navy does not have any specific understanding of how, if at all, Header Bidding
impacts its Display Advertising strategy or cost effectiveness of its display advertising strategy.
INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Separately for each agency and department of the United States
that is a “buyer[] of open web display advertising” (as alleged in Paragraph 341 of Your
complaint) or has used Ad Tech Products or Display Advertising during the Relevant Period,
describe the Properties on which Display Advertisements have been placed, including any
restrictions on the placement of Display Advertisements and any applicable criteria, settings, or
parameters, or any instructions given to Agencies or Ad Tech Providers regarding the placement
of Display Advertisements.
Response to Interrogatory No 8
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Navy responds as follows.
While the Navy reviews and concurs or disagrees with the media buying plan presented
by VMLY&R, the Navy does not direct VMLY&R to use or not use a specific vendor or
method, setting, or buying criteria. However, Navy and VMLY&R both ensure that ad
placement maintains brand safety such that ads are not placed nor recommended to be placed on
sites or along assets that would be considered salacious, controversial, or political.
Regarding criteria and parameters, the Navy provides appropriate age, citizenship, and
education criteria for content that is meant to specifically target a demographic to ensure that the
right/eligible audience receives the message for the program being advertised.
INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Provide a computation of the damages You seek in Paragraph
342(5) of Your complaint, including the names of and key contacts at each agency or department
of the United States to which the damages computation applies, and the date range for the
computation.
Response to Interrogatory No. 9
PDF Page 6
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 348-2 Filed 08/25/23 Page 5 of 23 PageID# 5167
PDF Page 7
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 348-2 Filed 08/25/23 Page 6 of 23 PageID# 5168
PDF Page 8
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 348-2 Filed 08/25/23 Page 7 of 23 PageID# 5169
PDF Page 9
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 348-2 Filed 08/25/23 Page 8 of 23 PageID# 5170
PDF Page 10
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 348-2 Filed 08/25/23 Page 9 of 23 PageID# 5171
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX D: THE CENSUS BUREAU
INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Separately for each agency and department of the United States
that is a “buyer[] of open web display advertising” (as alleged in Paragraph 341 of Your
complaint) or has used Ad Tech Products or Display Advertising during the Relevant Period,
provide the following information about each Ad Tech Product (whether provided by Google or
any other Ad Tech Provider) that the agency or department used:
a. the type of Ad Tech Product used;
b. the Ad Tech Provider;
c. the amount of ad spend by month;
d. the amount of Fees or Take Rate by month;
e. the dates during which the Ad Tech Product was used;
f. all reasons for using and/or switching from one Ad Tech Product to another; and
g. if applicable, all reasons for ceasing use of the Ad Tech Product.
Response to Interrogatory No. 4
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Census Bureau responds as
follows.
The Census Bureau relies on its ad agencies’ expertise to manage and operate various ad
tech platforms in the process of purchasing digital advertising on the Census Bureau’s behalf.
To the extent the Census Bureau has information responsive to these interrogatories, that
information would be found in reports its ad agencies provided to the Census Bureau. Plaintiff
will supplement this response as necessary to identify documents responsive to these
interrogatories once those documents have been produced.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Separately for each agency and department of the United States
that is a “buyer[] of open web display advertising” (as alleged in Paragraph 341 of Your
complaint) or has used Ad Tech Products or Display Advertising during the Relevant Period,
identify each account associated with each Ad Tech Product used and provide:
a. the dates during which each account was in use;
b. all entities associated with each account;
c. all account IDs (e.g., Google Customer IDs) associated with each account; and
d. the individuals and entities, including external advertising Agencies, that had
responsibility for and access to each account and the contact information for each
individual and entity.
1
PDF Page 11
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 348-2 Filed 08/25/23 Page 10 of 23 PageID# 5172
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Response to Interrogatory No. 5
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Census Bureau responds as
follows.
The Census Bureau relies on its ad agencies’ expertise to manage and operate various ad
tech platforms to purchase digital media on the Census Bureau’s behalf. The Census Bureau’s
point of contact at its ad agencies with respect to the ad tech platforms used to purchase
advertising on the Census Bureau’s behalf is Jack Benson (jbenson@reingold.com), Partner at
Reingold, Inc.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Separately for each agency and department of the United States
that is a “buyer[] of open web display advertising” (as alleged in Paragraph 341 of Your
complaint) or has used Ad Tech Products or Display Advertising during the Relevant Period,
describe how each agency and department determines return on investment or return on
advertising spend.
Response to Interrogatory No. 6
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Census Bureau responds as
follows.
The Census Bureau did not, as a matter of course, conduct any formal assessments of
return on investment or return on advertising spend with respect to Ad Tech Products or Display
Advertising. Rather, the Census Bureau received reports from its ad agencies, retained to
provide expertise and execute on the Census Bureau’s advertising strategy. The reports analyzed
the performance of the Census Bureau’s advertising across different channels based on a number
of factors, including comparing the number of planned impressions against actual impressions,
the total number of impressions, and click-through rates to the Census survey instrument. The
Census Bureau also held weekly status meetings with its advertising agencies to asses the
performance of its advertising campaigns.
2
PDF Page 12
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 348-2 Filed 08/25/23 Page 11 of 23 PageID# 5173
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Separately for each agency and department of the United States
that is a “buyer[] of open web display advertising” (as alleged in Paragraph 341 of Your
complaint) or has used Ad Tech Products or Display Advertising during the Relevant Period,
describe the impact of Header Bidding on its Display Advertising strategy or the cost
effectiveness of its Display Advertising.
Response to Interrogatory No. 7
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Census Bureau responds as
follows.
The Census Bureau does not have sufficient information or technical expertise to
determine whether or how header bidding has impacted its display advertising strategy or the
cost effectiveness of its display advertising.
INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Separately for each agency and department of the United States
that is a “buyer[] of open web display advertising” (as alleged in Paragraph 341 of Your
complaint) or has used Ad Tech Products or Display Advertising during the Relevant Period,
describe the Properties on which Display Advertisements have been placed, including any
restrictions on the placement of Display Advertisements and any applicable criteria, settings, or
parameters, or any instructions given to Agencies or Ad Tech Providers regarding the placement
of Display Advertisements.
Response to Interrogatory No 8
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, the Census Bureau responds as
follows.
The Census Bureau instructed its advertising agencies not to purchase advertising
placements in certain circumstances. Those instructions were amended or adjusted from time to
time according to the Census Bureau’s advertising needs and evolving circumstances, including
the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiff will supplement this response as necessary to
identify documents responsive to this interrogatory once those documents are produced.
3
PDF Page 13
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 348-2 Filed 08/25/23 Page 12 of 23 PageID# 5174
PDF Page 14
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 348-2 Filed 08/25/23 Page 13 of 23 PageID# 5175
PDF Page 15
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 348-2 Filed 08/25/23 Page 14 of 23 PageID# 5176
PDF Page 16
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 348-2 Filed 08/25/23 Page 15 of 23 PageID# 5177
PDF Page 17
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 348-2 Filed 08/25/23 Page 16 of 23 PageID# 5178
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX G: USPS RESPONSES
INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Separately for each agency and department of the United States
that is a “buyer[] of open web display advertising” (as alleged in Paragraph 341 of Your
complaint) or has used Ad Tech Products or Display Advertising during the Relevant Period,
provide the following information about each Ad Tech Product (whether provided by Google or
any other Ad Tech Provider) that the agency or department used:
a. the type of Ad Tech Product used;
b. the Ad Tech Provider;
c. the amount of ad spend by month;
d. the amount of Fees or Take Rate by month;
e. the dates during which the Ad Tech Product was used;
f. all reasons for using and/or switching from one Ad Tech Product to another; and
g. if applicable, all reasons for ceasing use of the Ad Tech Product.
Response to Interrogatory No. 4
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, USPS responds as follows.
USPS relies on its ad agency Universal McCann’s expertise to manage and operate
various ad tech platforms to purchase digital media on USPS’s behalf, including but not limited
to DV360, Google Search Ads 360, Google Ads, and The Trade Desk. To the extent USPS has
information responsive to these interrogatories, that information would be found in reports
Universal McCann provides to USPS. Plaintiff will supplement this response as necessary to
identify documents responsive to these interrogatories once those documents have been
produced.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Separately for each agency and department of the United States
that is a “buyer[] of open web display advertising” (as alleged in Paragraph 341 of Your
complaint) or has used Ad Tech Products or Display Advertising during the Relevant Period,
identify each account associated with each Ad Tech Product used and provide:
a. the dates during which each account was in use;
b. all entities associated with each account;
c. all account IDs (e.g., Google Customer IDs) associated with each account; and
d. the individuals and entities, including external advertising Agencies, that had
responsibility for and access to each account and the contact information for each
individual and entity.
1
PDF Page 18
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 348-2 Filed 08/25/23 Page 17 of 23 PageID# 5179
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Response to Interrogatory No. 5
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, USPS responds as follows.
USPS relies on its ad agency Universal McCann’s expertise to manage and operate
various ad tech platforms to purchase digital media on USPS’s behalf, including but not limited
to DV360, Google Search Ads 360, Google Ads, and The Trade Desk. USPS’s point of contact
at Universal McCann with respect to the ad tech platforms used to purchase advertising on
USPS’s behalf is Michael Knopf (
). Current employees with access
to DV360 include Michael Bottenberg and Matthew Petrowski.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Separately for each agency and department of the United States
that is a “buyer[] of open web display advertising” (as alleged in Paragraph 341 of Your
complaint) or has used Ad Tech Products or Display Advertising during the Relevant Period,
describe how each agency and department determines return on investment or return on
advertising spend.
Response to Interrogatory No. 6
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, USPS responds as follows.
USPS’s assessment of return on investment or return on advertising spend is ad-campaign
dependent. For example, for business-focused lead generation campaigns, USPS primarily
assesses
For brand-equity campaigns that target both businesses
and consumers, USPS uses
in conjunction with consumer sentiment metrics to measure
success.
compares the cost of advertising against the revenue generated as a result of that
advertising. With respect to the cost of advertising, the most common key performance
indicators USPS uses include
. With
respect to revenue, USPS calculates revenue attribution to a particular ad campaign in two ways.
2
PDF Page 19
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 348-2 Filed 08/25/23 Page 18 of 23 PageID# 5180
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Separately for each agency and department of the United States
that is a “buyer[] of open web display advertising” (as alleged in Paragraph 341 of Your
complaint) or has used Ad Tech Products or Display Advertising during the Relevant Period,
describe the impact of Header Bidding on its Display Advertising strategy or the cost
effectiveness of its Display Advertising.
Response to Interrogatory No. 7
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, USPS responds as follows.
3
PDF Page 20
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 348-2 Filed 08/25/23 Page 19 of 23 PageID# 5181
PDF Page 21
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 348-2 Filed 08/25/23 Page 20 of 23 PageID# 5182
PDF Page 22
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 348-2 Filed 08/25/23 Page 21 of 23 PageID# 5183
PDF Page 23
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 348-2 Filed 08/25/23 Page 22 of 23 PageID# 5184
PDF Page 24
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 348-2 Filed 08/25/23 Page 23 of 23 PageID# 5185
Back to 
