Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 1 of 51
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
`United States of America, et al.,
`
`v.
`
`Google LLC,
`
`State of Colorado, et al.,
`
`v.
`
`Google LLC,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Case No. 1:20-cv-03010-APM
`
`HON. AMIT P. MEHTA
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Case No. 1:20-cv-03715-APM
`
`HON. AMIT P. MEHTA
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF
`DOCUMENTS OF YELP, INC. CUSTODIAN LUTHER LOWE
`
`Google moves to compel the production of documents from a proposed custodian in
`
`response to Google’s April 13, 2021 subpoena to Yelp, Inc. (“Yelp”). Despite weeks of
`
`negotiation, Yelp refuses to produce custodial documents from Luther Lowe, Yelp’s Senior Vice
`
`President, Public Policy, who during Plaintiffs’ investigation and for years prior to that, led
`
`Yelp’s global outreach regarding its antitrust claims about Google. On Yelp’s behalf, Mr. Lowe
`
`has been pushing for a case against Google for many years, and has knowledge of the evolution
`
`of, and sources for, Yelp’s factual allegations. There is no comparable individual among Yelp’s
`
`proposed custodians. Google asks the Court to compel Yelp to produce responsive documents
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 2 of 51
`
`for Mr. Lowe by October 29, 2021, and to produce a privilege log for documents withheld from
`
`production. Yelp lacks any basis to oppose these requests. Yelp’s allegations against Google,
`
`conceived and advanced by Mr. Lowe, are a central part of the Government’s case. Now that the
`
`very governmental action Yelp advocated for in its communications is underway, Yelp cannot
`
`deny Google the documents it needs to defend itself.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Yelp is an online platform that allows consumers to search for and connect with local
`
`businesses. On April 13, 2021, Google issued a Rule 45 subpoena to Yelp. During Plaintiffs’
`
`investigations, Yelp presented its allegations about Google, which were ultimately pleaded in the
`
`Complaints.1 Yelp nonetheless asserted broad objections to the subpoena.
`
`In August 2021, Google moved for the Court’s assistance due to Yelp’s lack of response
`
`to its subpoena [Dkt. Nos. 190, 195], and this Court ordered updates on Yelp’s progress. After
`
`this prodding, Google and Yelp reached an agreement on search terms for five custodians, and
`
`are in the process of reaching agreement on similar terms for an additional five custodians.
`
`Despite its agreement as to other custodians, Yelp refuses to run the same search terms
`
`for Luther Lowe, who has led Yelp’s competition claims and has knowledge of any alleged harm
`
`caused by Google. After initially agreeing to include Mr. Lowe as a custodian, Yelp advised in
`
`late August that it had changed its position. Yelp thereafter rejected Google’s offer to negotiate
`
`limitations to reduce burden (e.g., filtering out attorney names). To assist Yelp in identifying
`
`targeted, responsive information, Google next provided samples from Plaintiffs’ productions,
`
`including Yelp presentations to Plaintiffs and Mr. Lowe’s congressional testimony [see Joint
`
`
`1 Indeed, as Google explained in its August 27, 2021 briefing [Dkt. Nos. 190, 195], Yelp’s response to Google’s
`subpoena contrasts starkly with the cooperation and responsiveness it has offered to DOJ and the Colorado
`Plaintiffs. See Appendices A, B.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 3 of 51
`
`Status Reports, Dkt. Nos. 210, 215, 222]. Yelp was unmoved, citing the burden of reviewing
`
`material and asserting that Mr. Lowe had no personal knowledge of the information in his
`
`statements. And despite its purported burden, Yelp offered other custodians. None of these
`
`points resonate: Mr. Lowe’s documents are indisputably relevant and should be produced.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I. Mr. Lowe’s Relevant, Non-Privileged Documents Should be Produced
`
`Mr. Lowe is a non-lawyer who has testified before the U.S. Senate and Ohio Senate, has
`
`made numerous appearances on television and podcasts, and has given other commentary
`
`seeking antitrust enforcement against Google on the very allegations ultimately brought by the
`
`Plaintiffs.2
`
`
`
`
`
`.3
`
`The specific Subpoena requests to which Yelp objects are plainly relevant to this case,
`
`including Requests 12 and 13 (emphasis added below).4
`
`● Request 12: All communications with, and documents or data provided to, third parties
`(including, but not limited to, government entities, market participants, trade associations,
`consultants, researchers, academia, and interest groups) related to Google’s search
`results, including any antitrust, competition, or consumer protection investigation or
`litigation involving Google.
`
`● Request 13: All documents related to actual, potential, or contemplated participation in
`industry organizations or coalitions related to search or search advertisements.
`
`For several reasons, Yelp’s strategy of offering other custodians5 in lieu of Mr. Lowe is
`
`
`
`2 See Appendices A, B.
`3 See Appendix B.
`4 Yelp has agreed to search terms and data productions that relate to a focused set of subpoena requests proposed by
`Google. See Appendix C.
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 4 of 51
`
`not acceptable, as it will deprive Google of the information needed to effectively depose or
`
`cross-examine Yelp witnesses in this matter. First, the majority of public and other statements
`
`regarding Yelp’s allegations about Google as they relate to this case are from Mr. Lowe. Yelp’s
`
`substitute custodians do not sufficiently address such statements, including Mr. Lowe’s March
`
`2020 testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee that closely aligns with the Colorado
`
`Plaintiffs’ Complaint, at ¶¶ 183-89:
`
`When Google sees a user’s query has local intent, Google’s local search service
`is placed higher on the page, and in a more attractive format, than any organic
`links to other local search verticals that might appear. The effect is to steer a
`massive amount of traffic away from local search providers, starving them of the
`user interaction they require to keep their content fresh and relevant.6
`
`Documents that Yelp already produced in this case reveal that none of the alternative proposed
`
`custodians focuses on competition issues, as Mr. Lowe does. For example,
`
` is
`
`a data scientist, whose role appears to be largely technical, based on documents produced to
`
`date.7
`
` is
`
`, whose documents produced
`
`thus far focus on details of advertising campaigns and budgets, and internal metrics.8 The
`
`remaining five individuals are similarly not substitutes for Mr. Lowe.9 Second, none of the
`
`substitute individuals are
`
`. See Appendix B (examples of
`
`). Indeed, two are
`
`
`6 Testimony of Luther Lowe before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary (March 10, 2020), at 5,
`https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Lowe%20Testimony.pdf.
`7
`
`
`
`8
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 5 of 51
`
`business school professors, who are not even current employees of Yelp. Yelp has not provided
`
`any search hit count reports that demonstrate the documents Yelp intends to produce from other
`
`custodians will contain Mr. Lowe’s records.10 Third, it is simply not accurate if Yelp asserts that
`
`Mr. Lowe lacks sufficient knowledge for his documents to be relevant. His public and other
`
`commentary about antitrust cases, including about this litigation, reflect specific and historical
`
`knowledge of Yelp’s allegations as they relate to Google.11
`
`II. Yelp Has Declined Reasonable Proposals by Google to Reduce Burden
`
`Yelp has refused to engage Google’s repeated efforts to resolve any legitimate burden
`
`objection. Google submits that the following process will enable Yelp to produce documents
`
`with minimal burden:
`
`● Yelp should run the agreed-upon search terms over Mr. Lowe’s documents with
`appropriate revisions to capture documents responsive to Requests 12 and 13, and Google
`is willing to revise search terms based on hit reports that show categories likely to contain
`significant privileged material.
`
`● Likewise, for the remaining requests at issue,12 Google and Yelp can negotiate and agree
`upon document categories likely to be privileged (e.g., communications with attorneys in
`the “To” and “From” fields absent other non-attorney recipients), subject to Yelp’s
`production of a privilege log with entries describing withheld documents.
`
`● Google will mark documents with third party names presumptively Highly Confidential,
`subject to de-designation under the Protective Order as appropriate.
`
`
`Yelp’s burden argument is without merit; it can designate filters, such as attorney and/or firm
`
`names (e.g., @kanterlawgroup.com or @hueston.com) to avoid producing privileged material, as
`
`is typical in any e-discovery process. Nor has Yelp provided search hit counts that demonstrate
`
`
`10 Google notes that Yelp’s counsel has also advised it will oppose any deposition or other testimony of Mr. Lowe,
`an objection which Google believes also lacks any basis.
`11 See Alex Kantrowitz, Yelp’s Luther Lowe on the ‘Seismic’ Antitrust Case Against Google, MEDIUM, Oct. 20,
`2020, https://onezero.medium.com/yelps-luther-lowe-on-the-seismic-antitrust-case-against-google-d835a3578c99
`(commenting on this litigation, including historical observations about Google, Yelp, and his own views on
`competition law and policy); see also Appendix B at
`
`
`
`
`
`12 See Appendix C.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 6 of 51
`
`significant overlap with other custodians, or any other unique issue with this particular
`
`custodian.
`
`III. There is No First Amendment Protection for Factual Allegations About Google
`
`The First Amendment does not bar the discovery into facts Google seeks. Yelp’s views
`
`about Google are widely known and published. There can be no allegation, much less any risk
`
`of reprisal, if the identities of any third parties revealed by Yelp’s communications are
`
`designated Highly Confidential.13 Weighed against the clear relevance of the information
`
`Google seeks, as Yelp cannot “show that there is some probability that disclosure will lead to
`
`reprisal or harassment,” it cannot shield itself from discovery requests with generalized First
`
`Amendment claims. See Greyhound Lines, Inc., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10095, at *6 (quoting
`
`Black Panther Party v. Smith, 661 F.2d 1243, 1267-68 (D.C. Cir. 1981), vacated on other
`
`grounds, 458 U.S. 1118 (1982) (ordering production despite First Amendment claims about
`
`association contribution lists)); see also Educ. Fin. Council v. Oberg, No. 10-mc-0079 (JDB),
`
`2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102221, at *15 (D.D.C. Mar. 8, 2010) (“largely vague protests do not
`
`comply with Rule 45’s requirement” when a party asserts a First Amendment challenge to a
`
`subpoena).
`
`
`13 See Hispanic Leadership Fund, Inc. v. Walsh, No. 1:12-CV-1337 (MAD/TWD), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192506,
`at *12-13 (N.D.N.Y. June 9, 2014) (granting defendant’s motion to compel because plaintiff “failed to show
`articulable objective evidence that the requested disclosure will expose [it] and its contributors to economic reprisal,
`loss of employment, threat of physical coercion, harassment or reprisal from government or private entities, and
`other manifestations of public hostility”). Courts, including in this District, have recognized that protective orders
`may minimize any concern of an associational “chilling effect.” See Klayman v. Judicial Watch, Civil Action No.
`06-670 (CKK) (AK), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142879, at *11-12 (D.D.C. Jan. 8, 2008) (declining to quash subpoena
`to third party and noting that the potential chilling effect of production was minimized by presence of protective
`order); Filanowski v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Civil No. 99-147-B, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24150, at *5-6 (D. Me.
`Oct. 29, 1999) (“Having failed to make some showing how Defendant’s possession of the list impairs ATLA’s
`associational activities, especially in light of the recently issued confidentiality order, the Court is satisfied that the
`privilege does not apply in this case.”). Courts in this District have also recognized that there can be no “chilling
`effect” where the allegedly “chilled” group’s views are already publicly known. Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Int’l
`Amalgamated Transit Union, Misc. Action No. 90-134, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10095, at *6-7 (D.D.C. July 9, 1992)
`(“[C]hilling effect would not extend to information regarding contributions made by ATU International or local
`ATU affiliates, since these organizations are already known to be associated with the strike.”)
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 7 of 51
`
`Yelp relies on a post-trial discovery ruling in Apple Inc. v. Match Group Inc., which
`
`neither aligns with precedent in this District nor is it on point on the facts. See Case No. 4:21-
`
`mc-80184-YGR, Dkt. No 36 at 4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2021) (Appendix D). Any concerns Yelp
`
`may have about disclosure of third-party information to Google can be resolved by designating
`
`documents containing names of third parties as presumptively Highly Confidential. Id. at 13-14
`
`(discussing concerns that disclosure to Apple would “chill” participation in the Coalition). The
`
`Protective Order in Apple v. Match would have permitted certain Apple employees to view the
`
`documents sought regardless of their designation. Id. at 13 n.7. Although Google of course
`
`disagrees with Yelp’s assertions, its agreement to presumptively designate documents containing
`
`names of third parties as Highly Confidential under the Protective Order should alleviate any
`
`concerns.
`
`Moreover, unlike Google’s tailored requests (see Appendix C), in that case, the post-trial
`
`discovery requests sought “absolutely every document in Match’s possession,” including
`
`documents about its “formation, documents of incorporation, bylaws, purpose, objectives,
`
`activities, sponsorship, founders, meeting minutes, membership, and fees.” See id. at 4. The
`
`court struggled to understand why documents about “which politicians the Coalition ha[d] been
`
`lobbying” or about the Coalition’s formation and bylaws related in any way to the antitrust
`
`claims in the class action. Id. at 5. By contrast, Google’s requests are limited to topics for which
`
`Yelp has already agreed to produce information. Yelp has no basis to oppose production.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For these reasons, Google respectfully requests that the Court compel Yelp to produce
`
`responsive non-privileged documents from Mr. Lowe by October 29, 2021, and provide a
`
`privilege log regarding any responsive documents withheld on privilege or other grounds.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 8 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`By:
`_____________________________________________
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI P.C.
`Wendy Huang Waszmer (D.C. Bar No. 478725)
`Susan A. Creighton (D.C. Bar No. 978486)
`Franklin M. Rubinstein (D.C. Bar No. 476674)
`1301 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, New York 10019
`Tel: 212-497-7702
`wwaszmer@wsgr.com
`
`1700 K Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: 202-973-8800
`screighton@wsgr.com
`frubinstein@wsgr.com
`
`
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`John E. Schmidtlein (D.C. Bar No. 441261)
`Benjamin M. Greenblum (D.C. Bar No. 979786)
`Colette T. Connor (D.C. Bar No. 991533)
`725 12th Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Tel: 202-434-5000
`jschmidtlein@wc.com
`bgreenblum@wc.com
`cconnor@wc.com
`
`
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`Mark S. Popofsky (D.C. Bar No. 454213)
`Matthew McGinnis (pro hac vice)
`2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: 202-508-4624
`Mark.Popofsky@ropesgray.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant Google LLC
`
`8
`
`
`Dated: October 1, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 9 of 51
`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 9 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`APPENDIX A
`APPENDIX A
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 10 of 51
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`Proposed Yelp Custodian Currently Disputed
`
`Luther Lowe: Mr. Lowe1 is Senior Vice President of Public Policy at Yelp and has been a Yelp
`employee for over thirteen years. In this role, he manages and directs the company’s global
`outreach to policy makers about Yelp, including interfacing with competition agencies.
`
`Yelp initially agreed to include Mr. Lowe as a custodian, but advised on August 27, 2021 that it
`no longer agreed to include him.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Mr. Lowe has also testified
`before the U.S. Senate and Ohio Senate regarding Google, including the specific allegations
`pleaded in this case. See Appendix B (Ohio Senate testimony). Mr. Lowe has also given
`interviews and participated in podcasts specifically discussing the allegations in this litigation, as
`well as the preceding investigations.3
`
`Google expects that Mr. Lowe’s documents will address gaps left by the current set of Yelp
`custodians. Mr. Lowe’s documents will cover the basis for his statements about Google and
`alleged harm to Yelp that is at issue in this case. Relevant documents include third-party
`communications with government entities and other third parties, and internal communications
`related to and supporting Yelp’s public statements about the allegations in this case.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/lutherlowe/.
`2 As Google explained in its August 27, 2021 briefing [Docket Nos. 190, 195], Yelp’s response to Google’s
`subpoena contrasts starkly with the cooperation and responsiveness it has offered to DOJ and the Colorado
`Plaintiffs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 See, e.g., Alex Kantrowitz, Yelp’s Luther Lowe on the ‘Seismic’ Antitrust Case Against Google, MEDIUM, Oct. 20,
`2020, https://onezero.medium.com/yelps-luther-lowe-on-the-seismic-antitrust-case-against-google-d835a3578c99
`(commenting on this litigation, including historical observations about Google, Yelp, and his own views on
`competition law and policy); Luther Lowe on CNBC Squawk Alley,
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMQhzqHtQRE (October 20, 2020).
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 11 of 51
`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 11 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`APPENDIX B
`APPENDIX B
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 12 of 51
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 12 of 51
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 13 of 51
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 13 of 51
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 14 of 51
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 14 of 51
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 15 of 51
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 15 of 51
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 16 of 51
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 16 of 51
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 17 of 51
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 17 of 51
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 18 of 51
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 18 of 51
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 19 of 51
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 19 of 51
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 20 of 51
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 20 of 51
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 21 of 51
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 21 of 51
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 22 of 51
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 22 of 51
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 23 of 51
`
`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 23 of 51
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 24 of 51
`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 24 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`APPENDIX C
`APPENDIX C
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 25 of 51
`
`APPENDIX C
`
`Google’s April 13, 2021 Subpoena to Yelp, Inc. - Document and Data Requests
`
`Yelp has agreed to search terms and data productions relating to the following set of subpoena
`requests proposed by Google:
`
`
`Request
`No.
`
`Document Requests
`
`4
`
`5
`
`8
`
`
`
`DOJ Request 10 seeks documents about the substitutability or complementarity of
`the Company’s search advertising or other paid listings or result formats with other
`forms of digital and non-digital advertising. To the extent not already called for by
`DOJ Request 10, produce all documents comparing, contrasting, discussing,
`analyzing, or addressing the actual or potential substitutability or complementarity
`of the Company’s search advertising services or other paid listings or result formats
`with an advertiser’s efforts to obtain free traffic, including by improving its organic
`search ranking or otherwise improving its profile or listing on Your website or any
`other search service.
`
`DOJ Request 14 seeks documents sufficient to show whom the Company sees as
`competitors for search advertisements and specialized search services. To the extent
`not already called for by DOJ Request 14, produce documents sufficient to show
`whom the Company sees as its competitors for digital and non-digital advertising.
`
`The Second DOJ Request 16 seeks documents discussing the advantages and
`disadvantages of types or formats of digital advertising. In addition to digital
`advertising, produce all documents on the topics covered by the Second DOJ
`Request 16 regarding the advantages and disadvantages, or otherwise comparing
`different formats, types, or channels of non-digital advertising. In addition, to the
`extent not already called for by the Second DOJ Request 16, for both digital and
`non-digital advertising, produce documents concerning:
`a. how and how often the Company revises or considers revising its advertising
`budget, including shifting advertising budget or spend from one format, type, or
`channel to a different format, type, or channel;
`b. how different advertising formats, types, or channels were or may be affected by
`innovations and changes in targeting and attribution technologies;
`c. how different advertising formats, types, or channels were or may be affected by
`past, upcoming, anticipated, or potential changes in digital platforms’ policies and
`government regulations concerning cookies and data privacy;
`d. other key performance indicators (“KPIs”), if any, that the Company uses to
`evaluate the effectiveness of each advertising format, type, or channel, including
`changes over time; or
`e. the value of an additional click or impression and whether the value of an
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 26 of 51
`
`additional click or impression is decreasing, constant, or increasing (e.g., would the
`Company be willing to spend more, the same, or less for the first click/impression of
`the ad than the 100th?) including changes over time.
`
`DOJ Request 17 seeks documents about the Company’s strategy or rationale
`regarding digital advertising. In addition to digital advertising, produce all
`documents on the topics covered by DOJ Request 17 as to non-digital advertising. In
`addition, to the extent not already called for by DOJ Request 17, for both digital and
`non-digital advertising, produce documents:
`a. discussing changes in targeting or attribution technologies used by different
`platforms, entities, or other sources of inventory; or
`b. discussing data privacy.
`
`Colorado Request 8 seeks documents concerning communications with Google
`related to the topics of the Colorado Lawsuit. Produce communications on the same
`topics identified in Colorado Request 8 with any search service, including
`Microsoft, DuckDuckGo, and Facebook.
`
`All documents concerning the actual or potential business, strategic, or other impact,
`if any, of any actual or potential antitrust investigation of Google, whether or not
`resulting in any government action, including advantages or disadvantages to the
`Company of any such action.
`
`All communications with, and documents or data provided to, third parties
`(including, but not limited to, government entities, market participants, trade
`associations, consultants, researchers, academia, and interest groups) related to
`Google’s search results, including any antitrust, competition, or consumer protection
`investigation or litigation involving Google.
`
`All documents related to actual, potential, or contemplated participation in industry
`organizations or coalitions related to search or search advertisements.
`
`All documents related to the paper by Michael Luca et al. titled “Does Google
`Content Degrade Google Search? Experimental Evidence” (dated September 2015)
`or the paper by Hyunjin Kim et al. titled “Product Quality and Entering Through
`Tying: Experimental Evidence” (dated 2019), including, but not limited to,
`communications with and payment to the authors, documents concerning the
`underlying studies and experiments, and any documents or data You supplied in
`connection with the papers or the underlying studies and experiments.
`
`All documents concerning any study, analysis, or presentation related to Google’s
`search results or search advertising offerings.
`
`All documents concerning actual or potential competition the Company faces related
`to its search service, including (i) documents sufficient to show who the Company
`views as its actual or potential competitors; and (ii) documents, studies, analyses, or
`
`2
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 27 of 51
`
`18
`
`19
`
`21
`
`22
`
`data relating to how often users navigate from/to the Company’s properties to/from
`another search service to run the same or similar queries.
`
`All documents discussing the Company’s strategy regarding actual, potential, or
`anticipated development or entry into specialized search services, including
`documents sufficient to show each specialized search service the Company has
`developed and/or has considered developing.
`
`All documents discussing how user query volume on the Company’s properties
`affects the quality of or demand for the Company’s search service.
`
`All documents discussing the market share of Your search service over time, based
`on queries, users, search starts, purchases or bookings, or any other metric tracked
`or analyzed by the Company.
`
`All documents related to the Company’s strategies or plans for attracting or
`retaining users and user traffic and queries to its properties, including all supporting
`data (including, but not limited
`to, ongoing monitoring), analyses, studies, experiments, surveys, or reports.
`Examples of responsive material include, but are not limited to, documents
`concerning:
`a. the Company’s strategy to compete for user traffic and queries with search
`engines, including decisions to not pursue certain strategies;
`b. users’ choices of where to initiate user queries, users’ path in seeking information,
`and the extent to which users multi-home or otherwise switch between or among the
`Company’s properties, and the properties of the Company’s competitors;
`c. the quality and performance (including changes over time) of the Company’s
`search service on any dimension, by category of search (if available), including, but
`not limited to, search result quality, user preference, user experience, or
`monetization potential;
`d. how the quality and performance of the Company’s search results compare with
`that of other search engines and social media, including documents that assess
`relative quality and performance for specific categories of search queries;
`e. how search results on Your search service are ranked, changes to that process
`over time, and the reasons for those changes;
`f. user feedback or complaints regarding the quality of Your search service,
`including related to user experience or ease of access, negative or fraudulent
`experiences with third parties found or booked through Your search service, or
`comprehensiveness of results;
`g. practices or policies concerning the types of results (e.g., results from other search
`services) that are included or excluded in Your search service results, including any
`related user or quality studies and all underlying data;
`h. any acquisitions, investments, actions, or changes the Company made to its
`service(s) in response to competition with other search engines or social media sites;
`i. the Company’s strategies for and costs of obtaining user traffic and diversifying
`sources of user traffic (e.g., search engine optimization (“SEO”) and search engine
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 28 of 51
`
`marketing (“SEM”)), downloaded and preinstalled applications, display ads, video
`ads, TV ads, social media, non-digital ads, etc.), including data showing any
`distribution payments by channel (e.g., Safari web browser, Apple Maps, Siri,
`Spotlight, Mozilla web browser, preinstalled applications, etc.);
`j. the Company’s strategies to improve its brand recognition or otherwise increase
`the likelihood that users will navigate directly to Your properties;
`k. the implications of users shifting from desktop to mobile and how app usage on
`mobile has affected or could affect searches on Company websites and those of its
`competitors, including Google;
`l. the Company’s strategies for obtaining mobile user traffic, including the level of
`user engagement on the Company’s mobile applications and websites; or
`m. the effect of preinstallation or default of the Company’s app or website on users’
`propensity to use the Company’s services, other search engines, or social media sites
`for their shopping searches.
`
`All documents concerning actual, potential, considered, explored, or anticipated
`agreements between the Company and search engines, device OEMs, wireless
`carriers, web browser developers, voice assistant developers, or any other party to
`distribute, promote, integrate with, or use content from Your search service. For
`each such agreement provide:
`a. all documents concerning actual, potential, or anticipated benefits or gains, or
`disadvantages or losses arising from the agreements, including but not limited to
`analyses of incremental revenues, profits, or query volume attributed to such
`agreements;
`b. all documents concerning modification or termination of such agreements; and
`c. data sufficient to show on a monthly basis from January 1, 2010, any distribution
`or revenue-sharing payments paid or received in connection with the agreement, by
`agreement, device type, device OEM, OS, and channel (e.g., web browser, app,
`voice assistant, map service, search feature, etc.).
`
`All documents discussing the display, placement, prominence, or visibility of Your
`website or search service in ads, paid listings, or organic listings on other search
`engines, social-media sites, or app stores, including documents concerning the
`benefits of appearing in one area of a search engine results page versus another.
`
`All documents concerning actual, potential, or contemplated requests that a search
`engine modify the way in which it shows results for, or other content related to,
`Your website or search service.
`
`All documents concerning (i) any actual or potential effects, if any, on the
`Company, or on the businesses appearing in the Company’s search results, of
`changes made by any search engine on the selection, ranking, or display of content
`on its results page; and (ii) the Company’s response, if any, to such changes.
`
`All documents describing user quality improvements in the Company’s search
`services, and how the Company measures and evaluates such improvements.
`
`4
`
`23
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM Document 228 Filed 10/04/21 Page 29 of 51
`
`Responsive information may include documents about design innovations,
`improvements in result quality, changes to search result types or formats, changes to
`query options,