STATUS REPORT re Rule 30(b)(6) Notice to Google by Commonwealth of Virginia, State of Arizona, State of California, State of Colorado, State of Connecticut, State of Illinois, State of Michigan, State of Minnesota, State of Nebraska, State of New Hampshire, State of New Jersey, State of New York, State of North Carolina, State of Rhode Island, State of Tennessee, State of Washington, State of West Virginia, United States of America. (Teitelbaum, Aaron)
Page 1 PageID#
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
UNITED STATES, et al.,
v.
Plaintiffs,
GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
PLAINTIFFS’ STATUS UPDATE REGARDING NEGOTIATIONS ON RULE 30(B)(6)
DEPOSITION NOTICE TO GOOGLE
In response to the Court’s order at ECF No. 353, Plaintiffs are providing the Court with
their view of the current status of negotiations with Google as to the scope of the Rule 30(b)(6)
notice that is the subject of Google’s pending Motion for a Protective Order, ECF No. 311.
The parties have continued to have productive discussions over the past two weeks in an
effort to narrow areas of disagreement. As of the afternoon of August 31, 2023, the parties have
reached tentative agreement as to the scope of 23 of the 30 original topics, such that intervention
from the Court is unlikely to be necessary. Specifically, the topics about which the parties have
reached tentative agreement are Topics 1-12, 17-24, and 28-30.
As of shortly before 5:00pm on August 31, 2023, disputes remained about the scope of
Topics 13-16 and Topics 25-27.
Below is a brief summary of the nature of the remaining disputes, from Plaintiffs’ perspective:Page 2 PageID#
Plaintiffs seek testimony on data exchanged by and
among the relevant products (Topics 13–16).
On August 30, Plaintiffs proposed to narrow topics 15-16 and removed certain
ambiguities, resulting in the revision of topics 15 and 16 as follows:
Original Language
Redline Proposed by Plaintiffs on 8/
Topic 15. From January 1, 2010 to the
present, how data is passed, shared, or
exchanged among or between Google Ad
Manager, Google Display & Video 360,
Google Ads, and any other product offered
by Google that facilitates the sale or
purchase of digital display advertising, and
all subsidiary products and predecessor
products (including DoubleClick for
Publishers or DFP, AdX, DoubleClick Bid
Manager or DBM, AdWords, AdMeld, and
AdSesnse for Content) and: (a)
Identification or descriptions of the contents
of that data;
Topic 15. From January 1, 2010 2016 to the
present, how data is passed, shared, or
exchanged among or between Google Ad
Manager, Google Display & Video 360, Google
Ads, DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP), and
AdX, as those terms are defined in the
Complaint. and any other products offered by
Google that facilitates the sale or purchase of
digital display advertising, and all subsidiary
products and predecessor products (including
DoubleClick for Publishers or DFP, AdX,
DoubleClick Bid Manager or DBM, AdWords,
AdMeld, and AdSesnse for Content) and: (a)
Identification or descriptions of the contents of
that data;
(b) How Google’s products, employees, and
executives use that data in the ordinary
course of Google’s business; and
(c) How these data differ from data
transmitted from Google products to thirdparty ad tech products.
Topic 16. From January 1, 2010 to the
present, identification of any datasets
accessible to and accessed by the following
products (including those accessible to
multiple products): Google Ad Manager,
Google Display & Video 360, Google Ads,
and any other product offered by Google
that facilitates the sale or purchase of digital
display advertising, and all subsidiary
products and predecessor products
(including DoubleClick for Publishers or
(b) How Google’s products, employees, and
executives use that data in the ordinary course
of Google’s business; and
(c) How these data differ from data transmitted
from Google products to third-party ad tech
products.
Topic 16. From January 1, 2010 2016 to the
present, identification and descriptions of any
datasets accessible to and accessed by the
following products: (including those accessible
to multiple products): Google Ad Manager ,
Google Display & Video 360, Google Ads,
DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP), and AdX, as
those terms are defined in the Complaint. and
any other product offered by Google that
facilitates the sale or purchase of digital display
advertising, and all subsidiary products and Page 3 PageID#
DFP, AdX, DoubleClick Bid Manager or
DBM, AdWords, AdMeld, and AdSesnse
for Content) and: (a) Descriptions of the
contents of that data; and
predecessor products (including DoubleClick
for Publishers or DFP, AdX, DoubleClick Bid
Manager or DBM, AdWords, AdMeld, and
AdSesnse for Content) and:
(b) How Google’s products, employees, and
executives use that data in the ordinary
course of Google’s business.
(a) Descriptions of the contents of that data; and
(b) How Google’s products, employees, and
executives use that data in the ordinary course
of Google’s business.
Today, Google proposed narrowed language for Topics 13 and 14, but asked that
Plaintiffs withdraw Topics 15 and 16. Plaintiffs understand that Google is treating Topics 13–as a package deal, and has proposed narrowed language for Topics 13 and 14 in exchange for
Plaintiffs’ withdrawal of Topics 15 and 16. For the sake of compromise, Plaintiffs would be
willing to accept Google’s proposed narrowing of Topics 13 and 14 as reflected in an email from
Google’s counsel at 12:31pm on August 31, 2023. With respect to Topics 15 and 16, however,
Plaintiffs believe these topics have been sufficiently narrowed and cannot accept Google’s
request to completely withdraw these two topics.
Plaintiffs believe that the current topics, as narrowed to address Google’s objections to
vagueness and overbreadth, are appropriate in subject matter and scope. Plaintiffs seek oral
testimony on the following topics:
•
•
Topic 15. From January 1, 2016 to the present, how data is passed, shared, or exchanged
among or between Google Ads, DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP), and AdX, as those
terms are defined in the Complaint.
Topic 16. From January 1, 2016 to the present, identification and descriptions of any
datasets accessible to and accessed by the following products: Google Ads, DoubleClick
for Publishers (DFP), and AdX, as those terms are defined in the Complaint. Page 4 PageID#
Plaintiffs agree to accept written responses in lieu of testimony about Google’s chat
retention policies, but disagree regarding the scope of this testimony (Topics 25–27).
Understanding that Plaintiffs view the proposed resolution set forth below of Topics 2527 as a “package deal,” Plaintiffs agree to the following, with Google’s most recent proposal in
black, and Plaintiffs’ response in red:
Topic 25: In lieu of testimony on Topic 25, Google is willing to provide: (a) its Chat retention
policies for the period from January 1, 2016 to the present (or, if no retention policy specific to
Chat was in effect during parts of that period, its general document retention policy during those
parts of that period); (b) a chart indicating when a litigation hold for the Investigation or
Litigation was issued to each custodian; and (c) a written response on Topic 25(c), narrowed as
follows: “whether, when, and in what circumstances Google suspended its 24-hour auto-delete
policy for chat messages for chat messages related to this Investigation or Litigation and/or other
ongoing or reasonably-anticipated litigations and/or investigations.” Plaintiffs agree to Topic as set forth here, assuming Google agrees to Topic 26 as proposed here.
Topic 26: Google is willing to provide a written response describing, based on a reasonable
inquiry: (a) for each of the Covered Employees (as defined below): (i) whether the employee
used Chats to discuss matters relevant to this case; and (ii) the employee's Chat history setting at
times when the employee discussed matters relevant to this case; and (b) any non-privileged
direction or statements that Google provided to its employees about conducting chats with
"history off." For purposes of Topic 26, "Covered Employees" means all current and former
Google employees listed on either side's initial disclosures, minus: (1) current or former Google
employees noticed for deposition in this case who have not yet testified as of today; and (2)
current or former Google employees who have previously testified under oath, either during the
investigation or litigation phase of this case, regarding both items (a)(i) and (a)(ii) above.
Topic 27: Google proposes that plaintiffs withdraw Topic 27. Plaintiffs agree to withdraw Topic
27, assuming Google agrees to Topics 25 and 26 as proposed here.
Plaintiffs use the word “tentative” to describe the parties’ agreement on 23 of 30 topics
because, as Plaintiffs currently understand, Google has not yet indicated its final agreement to
the narrowed topics, outside of a complete resolution of the scope of the entire Rule 30(b)(6)
notice. However, Plaintiffs intend to take the position at the hearing on September 1, 2023, that
the agreed-to Topics, 1-12, 17-24, and 28-30, should go forward as currently negotiated, and the
only remaining disputes to resolve concern Topics 13-16 and Topics 25-27. Page 5 PageID#
Respectfully submitted,
JESSICA D. ABER
United States Attorney
JASON S. MIYARES
Attorney General of Virginia
/s/ Gerard Mene
GERARD MENE
Assistant U.S. Attorney
2100 Jamieson Avenue
Alexandria, VA Telephone: (703) 299-Facsimile: (703) 299-Email: Gerard.Mene@usdoj.gov
/s/ Andrew N. Ferguson
ANDREW N. FERGUSON
Solicitor General
STEVEN G. POPPS
Deputy Attorney General
TYLER T. HENRY
Assistant Attorney General
/s/ Julia Tarver Wood
JULIA TARVER WOOD
/s/ Aaron M. Teitelbaum
AARON M. TEITELBAUM
United States Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
450 Fifth Street NW, Suite Washington, DC Telephone: (202) 307-Fax: (202) 616-Email: Julia.Tarver.Wood@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for the United States
Office of the Attorney General of Virginia
202 North Ninth Street
Richmond, VA Telephone: (804) 692-Facsimile: (804) 786-Email: thenry@oag.state.va.us
Attorneys for the Commonwealth of
Virginia and local counsel for the
States of Arizona, California,
Colorado,
Connecticut,
Illinois,
Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
North Carolina, Rhode Island,
Tennessee, Washington, and West
Virginia
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 373 Filed 08/31/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 5943
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
UNITED STATES, et al.,
v.
Plaintiffs,
GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
PLAINTIFFS’ STATUS UPDATE REGARDING NEGOTIATIONS ON RULE 30(B)(6)
DEPOSITION NOTICE TO GOOGLE
In response to the Court’s order at ECF No. 353, Plaintiffs are providing the Court with
their view of the current status of negotiations with Google as to the scope of the Rule 30(b)(6)
notice that is the subject of Google’s pending Motion for a Protective Order, ECF No. 311.
The parties have continued to have productive discussions over the past two weeks in an
effort to narrow areas of disagreement. As of the afternoon of August 31, 2023, the parties have
reached tentative agreement as to the scope of 23 of the 30 original topics, such that intervention
from the Court is unlikely to be necessary. Specifically, the topics about which the parties have
reached tentative agreement are Topics 1-12, 17-24, and 28-30.
As of shortly before 5:00pm on August 31, 2023, disputes remained about the scope of
Topics 13-16 and Topics 25-27.
Below is a brief summary of the nature of the remaining disputes, from Plaintiffs’ perspective:
PDF Page 3
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 373 Filed 08/31/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID# 5944
Plaintiffs seek testimony on data exchanged by and
among the relevant products (Topics 13–16).
On August 30, Plaintiffs proposed to narrow topics 15-16 and removed certain
ambiguities, resulting in the revision of topics 15 and 16 as follows:
Original Language
Redline Proposed by Plaintiffs on 8/30
Topic 15. From January 1, 2010 to the
present, how data is passed, shared, or
exchanged among or between Google Ad
Manager, Google Display & Video 360,
Google Ads, and any other product offered
by Google that facilitates the sale or
purchase of digital display advertising, and
all subsidiary products and predecessor
products (including DoubleClick for
Publishers or DFP, AdX, DoubleClick Bid
Manager or DBM, AdWords, AdMeld, and
AdSesnse for Content) and: (a)
Identification or descriptions of the contents
of that data;
Topic 15. From January 1, 2010 2016 to the
present, how data is passed, shared, or
exchanged among or between Google Ad
Manager, Google Display & Video 360, Google
Ads, DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP), and
AdX, as those terms are defined in the
Complaint. and any other products offered by
Google that facilitates the sale or purchase of
digital display advertising, and all subsidiary
products and predecessor products (including
DoubleClick for Publishers or DFP, AdX,
DoubleClick Bid Manager or DBM, AdWords,
AdMeld, and AdSesnse for Content) and: (a)
Identification or descriptions of the contents of
that data;
(b) How Google’s products, employees, and
executives use that data in the ordinary
course of Google’s business; and
(c) How these data differ from data
transmitted from Google products to thirdparty ad tech products.
Topic 16. From January 1, 2010 to the
present, identification of any datasets
accessible to and accessed by the following
products (including those accessible to
multiple products): Google Ad Manager,
Google Display & Video 360, Google Ads,
and any other product offered by Google
that facilitates the sale or purchase of digital
display advertising, and all subsidiary
products and predecessor products
(including DoubleClick for Publishers or
(b) How Google’s products, employees, and
executives use that data in the ordinary course
of Google’s business; and
(c) How these data differ from data transmitted
from Google products to third-party ad tech
products.
Topic 16. From January 1, 2010 2016 to the
present, identification and descriptions of any
datasets accessible to and accessed by the
following products: (including those accessible
to multiple products): Google Ad Manager ,
Google Display & Video 360, Google Ads,
DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP), and AdX, as
those terms are defined in the Complaint. and
any other product offered by Google that
facilitates the sale or purchase of digital display
advertising, and all subsidiary products and
2
PDF Page 4
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 373 Filed 08/31/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID# 5945
DFP, AdX, DoubleClick Bid Manager or
DBM, AdWords, AdMeld, and AdSesnse
for Content) and: (a) Descriptions of the
contents of that data; and
predecessor products (including DoubleClick
for Publishers or DFP, AdX, DoubleClick Bid
Manager or DBM, AdWords, AdMeld, and
AdSesnse for Content) and:
(b) How Google’s products, employees, and
executives use that data in the ordinary
course of Google’s business.
(a) Descriptions of the contents of that data; and
(b) How Google’s products, employees, and
executives use that data in the ordinary course
of Google’s business.
Today, Google proposed narrowed language for Topics 13 and 14, but asked that
Plaintiffs withdraw Topics 15 and 16. Plaintiffs understand that Google is treating Topics 13–16
as a package deal, and has proposed narrowed language for Topics 13 and 14 in exchange for
Plaintiffs’ withdrawal of Topics 15 and 16. For the sake of compromise, Plaintiffs would be
willing to accept Google’s proposed narrowing of Topics 13 and 14 as reflected in an email from
Google’s counsel at 12:31pm on August 31, 2023. With respect to Topics 15 and 16, however,
Plaintiffs believe these topics have been sufficiently narrowed and cannot accept Google’s
request to completely withdraw these two topics.
Plaintiffs believe that the current topics, as narrowed to address Google’s objections to
vagueness and overbreadth, are appropriate in subject matter and scope. Plaintiffs seek oral
testimony on the following topics:
•
•
Topic 15. From January 1, 2016 to the present, how data is passed, shared, or exchanged
among or between Google Ads, DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP), and AdX, as those
terms are defined in the Complaint.
Topic 16. From January 1, 2016 to the present, identification and descriptions of any
datasets accessible to and accessed by the following products: Google Ads, DoubleClick
for Publishers (DFP), and AdX, as those terms are defined in the Complaint.
3
PDF Page 5
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 373 Filed 08/31/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID# 5946
Plaintiffs agree to accept written responses in lieu of testimony about Google’s chat
retention policies, but disagree regarding the scope of this testimony (Topics 25–27).
Understanding that Plaintiffs view the proposed resolution set forth below of Topics 2527 as a “package deal,” Plaintiffs agree to the following, with Google’s most recent proposal in
black, and Plaintiffs’ response in red:
Topic 25: In lieu of testimony on Topic 25, Google is willing to provide: (a) its Chat retention
policies for the period from January 1, 2016 to the present (or, if no retention policy specific to
Chat was in effect during parts of that period, its general document retention policy during those
parts of that period); (b) a chart indicating when a litigation hold for the Investigation or
Litigation was issued to each custodian; and (c) a written response on Topic 25(c), narrowed as
follows: “whether, when, and in what circumstances Google suspended its 24-hour auto-delete
policy for chat messages for chat messages related to this Investigation or Litigation and/or other
ongoing or reasonably-anticipated litigations and/or investigations.” Plaintiffs agree to Topic 25
as set forth here, assuming Google agrees to Topic 26 as proposed here.
Topic 26: Google is willing to provide a written response describing, based on a reasonable
inquiry: (a) for each of the Covered Employees (as defined below): (i) whether the employee
used Chats to discuss matters relevant to this case; and (ii) the employee's Chat history setting at
times when the employee discussed matters relevant to this case; and (b) any non-privileged
direction or statements that Google provided to its employees about conducting chats with
"history off." For purposes of Topic 26, "Covered Employees" means all current and former
Google employees listed on either side's initial disclosures, minus: (1) current or former Google
employees noticed for deposition in this case who have not yet testified as of today; and (2)
current or former Google employees who have previously testified under oath, either during the
investigation or litigation phase of this case, regarding both items (a)(i) and (a)(ii) above.
Topic 27: Google proposes that plaintiffs withdraw Topic 27. Plaintiffs agree to withdraw Topic
27, assuming Google agrees to Topics 25 and 26 as proposed here.
Plaintiffs use the word “tentative” to describe the parties’ agreement on 23 of 30 topics
because, as Plaintiffs currently understand, Google has not yet indicated its final agreement to
the narrowed topics, outside of a complete resolution of the scope of the entire Rule 30(b)(6)
notice. However, Plaintiffs intend to take the position at the hearing on September 1, 2023, that
the agreed-to Topics, 1-12, 17-24, and 28-30, should go forward as currently negotiated, and the
only remaining disputes to resolve concern Topics 13-16 and Topics 25-27.
4
PDF Page 6
Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 373 Filed 08/31/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID# 5947
Respectfully submitted,
JESSICA D. ABER
United States Attorney
JASON S. MIYARES
Attorney General of Virginia
/s/ Gerard Mene
GERARD MENE
Assistant U.S. Attorney
2100 Jamieson Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22314
Telephone: (703) 299-3777
Facsimile: (703) 299-3983
Email: Gerard.Mene@usdoj.gov
/s/ Andrew N. Ferguson
ANDREW N. FERGUSON
Solicitor General
STEVEN G. POPPS
Deputy Attorney General
TYLER T. HENRY
Assistant Attorney General
/s/ Julia Tarver Wood
JULIA TARVER WOOD
/s/ Aaron M. Teitelbaum
AARON M. TEITELBAUM
United States Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
450 Fifth Street NW, Suite 7100
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 307-0077
Fax: (202) 616-8544
Email: Julia.Tarver.Wood@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for the United States
Office of the Attorney General of Virginia
202 North Ninth Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 692-0485
Facsimile: (804) 786-0122
Email: thenry@oag.state.va.us
Attorneys for the Commonwealth of
Virginia and local counsel for the
States of Arizona, California,
Colorado,
Connecticut,
Illinois,
Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
North Carolina, Rhode Island,
Tennessee, Washington, and West
Virginia
5
Back to 
