Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 1416 Filed 04/24/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID#
`103803
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`Alexandria Division
`
`)
`
`
`)
`
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`
`
`No. 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
`
`
`UNITED STATES, et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JOINT PROPOSAL REGARDING
`THE ADJUDICATION OF EQUITABLE REMEDIES
`
`PURSUANT TO the Court’s Order (ECF No. 1411) the parties have met and conferred
`
`
`
`and submit this joint response proposing a schedule for the adjudication of equitable remedies.
`
`1.
`
`The federal government and seventeen states (“Plaintiffs”) filed this antitrust action
`
`against Defendant, Google LLC (“Google”), alleging certain antitrust violations concerning digital
`
`advertising technology markets (ECF No. 120) (“Amended Complaint”).
`
`2.
`
`Following the presentation of evidence, post-trial briefing, and closing arguments,
`
`the Court issued a liability ruling in this matter on April 17, 2025 (ECF No. 1410).
`
`3.
`
`On the same day, the Court issued an Order instructing the parties within seven (7)
`
`days to “submit a joint proposed schedule for briefing and arguing their positions as to the remedies
`
`that should be imposed” in light of the Court having found the Defendant liable on Counts I, II,
`
`and IV of the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 1411).
`
`4.
`
`The parties submit that an evidentiary hearing is both necessary and appropriate for
`
`the adjudication of potential equitable remedies. The parties also submit that limited additional
`
`fact discovery is both necessary and appropriate for the adjudication of potential equitable
`
`remedies (see EFC No. 283 at 3-4).
`
`1
`
`
`103803
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`Alexandria Division
`
`)
`
`
`)
`
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`
`
`No. 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA
`
`
`UNITED STATES, et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`JOINT PROPOSAL REGARDING
`THE ADJUDICATION OF EQUITABLE REMEDIES
`
`PURSUANT TO the Court’s Order (ECF No. 1411) the parties have met and conferred
`
`
`
`and submit this joint response proposing a schedule for the adjudication of equitable remedies.
`
`1.
`
`The federal government and seventeen states (“Plaintiffs”) filed this antitrust action
`
`against Defendant, Google LLC (“Google”), alleging certain antitrust violations concerning digital
`
`advertising technology markets (ECF No. 120) (“Amended Complaint”).
`
`2.
`
`Following the presentation of evidence, post-trial briefing, and closing arguments,
`
`the Court issued a liability ruling in this matter on April 17, 2025 (ECF No. 1410).
`
`3.
`
`On the same day, the Court issued an Order instructing the parties within seven (7)
`
`days to “submit a joint proposed schedule for briefing and arguing their positions as to the remedies
`
`that should be imposed” in light of the Court having found the Defendant liable on Counts I, II,
`
`and IV of the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 1411).
`
`4.
`
`The parties submit that an evidentiary hearing is both necessary and appropriate for
`
`the adjudication of potential equitable remedies. The parties also submit that limited additional
`
`fact discovery is both necessary and appropriate for the adjudication of potential equitable
`
`remedies (see EFC No. 283 at 3-4).
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 1416 Filed 04/24/25 Page 2 of 5 PageID#
`103804
`
` 5.
`
`During the merits-adjudication phase, Plaintiffs sought clarification of the pretrial
`
`schedule regarding the timing, nature, and extent of discovery that would occur regarding equitable
`
`remedies if Google were found liable (ECF Nos. 276 & 277). The Court (Hon. John F. Anderson,
`
`United States Magistrate Judge) granted relief to Plaintiffs and entered an order providing that
`
`were liability to be found, the Court would then “promptly convene a status conference to discuss
`
`whether plaintiffs wish to pursue equitable relief . . . , what equitable relief plaintiffs intend to
`
`pursue, the schedule for exchanging expert reports addressing the specific equitable remedy or
`
`remedies being sought, the schedule for briefing by the parties, and a date for a hearing” (ECF No.
`
`283 at 3).
`
`6.
`
`Only equitable remedies are now at issue (Amended Complaint, ¶ 342,
`
`subparagraphs 6-9). The predicate event for adjudication of equitable remedies is the parties’
`
`identification of proposed equitable remedies, which is the first event in the schedule. Those
`
`proposed remedies will then set the parameters for appropriate fact and expert discovery.
`
`7.
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Order (ECF No. 1411), the parties have met and conferred
`
`and submit the following proposal for the schedule for limited fact and expert discovery pertaining
`
`to equitable remedies:
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 1416 Filed 04/24/25 Page 3 of 5 PageID#
`103805
`
`Event
`The parties will each file with the Court their proposals for
`appropriate remedies in this matter.
`Factual discovery on the parties’ proposals begins.
`The parties will each file with the Court their response to the
`opposing party’s proposal for the appropriate remedies in this
`matter.
`Factual discovery on the parties’ proposals closes.
`The parties shall simultaneously serve expert reports and
`disclosures consistent with Rule 26(a)(2).
`The parties shall simultaneously serve opposition expert reports
`and disclosures.
`The parties shall simultaneously serve reply reports.
`Expert discovery on the parties’ proposals closes.
`The parties will each file proposed orders reflecting the
`appropriate remedies in this matter.
`The parties will each file responses to the opposing party’s
`proposal for the appropriate remedies in this matter.
`The parties’ proposed remedies trial commencement date.1
`The parties shall file post-hearing briefs.
`
`6.
`
`Date
`May 5, 2025
`Immediately
`
`May 19, 2025
`
`June 30, 2025
`July 7, 2025
`
`July 28, 2025
`August 11, 2025
`August 27, 2025
`
`September 5, 2025
`
`September 19, 2025
`September 22, 2025
`2 weeks after the close of
`trial
`
`The parties respectfully submit that this proposed schedule will permit the
`
`reasonably prompt and orderly adjudication of equitable remedies.
`
`WHEREFORE, the parties request that the Court adopt the proposed schedule. A proposed
`
`order is submitted herewith.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 If September 22, 2025, is not available to the Court for the commencement of the remedies trial,
`the parties request that they be permitted to meet and confer to propose other mutually available
`dates.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 1416 Filed 04/24/25 Page 4 of 5 PageID#
`103806
`
`Dated: April 24, 2025
`
`JOINTLY SUBMITTED:
`
`FOR PLAINTIFFS:
`
`ERIK S. SIEBERT
`United States Attorney
`
`/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/ Julia Tarver Wood
`JULIA TARVER WOOD
`/s/ Michael E. Wolin
`MICHAEL E. WOLIN
`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
`
`
`JASON S. MIYARES
`Attorney General of Virginia
`
`/s/ Tyler T. Henry
`TYLER T. HENRY
`Assistant Attorney General
`
`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
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA Document 1416 Filed 04/24/25 Page 5 of 5 PageID#
`103807
`
`FOR GOOGLE:
`
`Eric Mahr (pro hac vice)
`Julie S. Elmer (pro hac vice)
`Andrew J. Ewalt (pro hac vice)
`FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS
`DERINGER US LLP
`700 13th Street NW, 10th Floor
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: (202) 777-4500
`Facsimile: (202) 777-4555
`eric.mahr@freshfields.com
`julie.elmer@freshfields.com
`andrew.ewalt@freshfields.com
`
`Justina Sessions (pro hac vice)
`FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS
`DERINGER US LLP
`855 Main Street
`Redwood City, CA 94063
`Telephone: (650) 618-9250
`justina.sessions@freshfields.com
`
`Daniel S. Bitton (pro hac vice)
`AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP
`55 2nd Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Telephone: (415) 490-2000
`Facsimile: (415) 490-2001
`dbitton@axinn.com
`
`/s/ Craig C. Reilly
`CRAIG C. REILLY (VSB # 20942)
`209 Madison Street
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`Telephone: (703) 549-5354
`Facsimile: (703) 549-5355
`craig.reilly@ccreillylaw.com
`
`Karen L. Dunn (pro hac vice)
`Jeannie Rhee (pro hac vice)
`William Isaacson (pro hac vice)
`Amy J. Mauser (pro hac vice)
`PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
`GARRISON LLP
`2001 K Street NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone: (202) 223-7300
`Facsimile: (202) 223-7420
`kdunn@paulweiss.com
`jrhee@paulweiss.com
`wisaacson@paulweiss.com
`amauser@paulweiss.com
`
`Bradley Justus (VSB # 80533)
`David Pearl (pro hac vice)
`AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP
`1901 L Street NW
`Washington, DC 20036
`Telephone: (202) 912-4700
`Facsimile: (202) 912-4701
`bjustus@axinn.com
`dpearl@axinn.com
`
`Counsel for Google LLC
`
`5
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
