1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Plaintiff United States of America and Defendants Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. (“HPE”) and Juniper Networks, Inc. (“Juniper”), jointly submit this Joint Proposed Case Management Plan pursuant to the Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California and Civil Local Rule 16-9, and the Court’s order at the Case Management Conference on February 28, 2025.

Notwithstanding any other part of this Paragraph, the Parties reserve their right to move for a protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1).

Budgets, invoices, bills, receipts, or time records concerning testifying or non-testifying experts, their staff, assistants, colleagues, or associates, or their companies or organizations.

Notwithstanding the limitations contained in the paragraph immediately above, an expert may be asked at a deposition or trial: (a) to identify and generally describe what data, facts, algorithms, modeling, regression analyses and source code the expert reviewed, investigated or considered but did not rely on or otherwise use, and (b) to describe the reasons for reviewing—but not using or relying on—any such data, facts, algorithms, modeling, analyses or source code.

D. Service of Pleadings and Discovery on Other Parties Service of all pleadings, discovery requests (including subpoenas for testimony or documents under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45), and delivery of all correspondence in this matter, other than expert backup materials, must be made by ECF or email, except when the volume of attachments requires delivery via secure file transfer, to the following individuals designated by each Party:

None of Miranda, Adegoke and Espinoza’s arguments convince us that the district court had jurisdiction to issue the class-wide injunctive relief concerning the application of § 1226(a).

Considering the preliminary injunction factors without these legal errors, none favor granting such an injunction.

The Government articulates no public interest that any of this serves and we see none.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4th day of October, two thousand twenty-three.

Petitioner has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus.

Also pending before the Court are Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of an applications judge’s denial of its request to file a reply, Petitioner’s motion for a stay, and Respondents’ motion to vacate the administrative stay issued by an applications judge.

Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the mandamus petition is DENIED because Petitioner has not demonstrated that exceptional circumstances warrant the requested relief.

It is further ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is DENIED, the administrative stay is LIFTED, and the remaining motions are DENIED as moot.

) GOOGLE LLC and ALPHABET, INC., ) Defendants.

Upon consideration of counsel’s Motion to Withdraw Appearance, it is hereby ORDERED on this ____ day of ________________ that the Motion is GRANTED.

Accordingly, Mark R. Meador is hereby WITHDRAWN as counsel for Plaintiff Rumble Canada, Inc.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to remove Mark R. Meador’s name from the CM/ECF service list for this matter.

Southern District of New York

At a Stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 29th day of September, two thousand twenty three,

Ashley C. Keller seeks to be admitted pro hac vice for the purpose of representing the Respondents.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.

Counsel is directed to register as a Filing User under Local Rule 25.1 to file documents electronically in this case within three (3) days of the date of this order.

For The Court: Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

This Document Relates to: All Cases

Before the Court is a Motion to Withdraw Jeanette Marie Bayoumi as Counsel for Defendants Google LLC, Alphabet Inc., and YouTube, LLC in the above-captioned proceeding.

The Court has determined that the motion should be granted.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Jeanette Marie Bayoumi is withdrawn as counsel for Defendants Google LLC, Alphabet Inc., and YouTube, LLC and shall be removed from the Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) notification in the above-captioned proceeding.

United States District Judge

Docket Number(s): ________________________________________ _______________Caption [use short title]_____________________ Admission Pro Hac Vice for Ashley C. Keller Motion for: ______________________________________________

Set forth below precise, complete statement of relief sought: The undersigned moves for pro hac vice admission

[name of attorney, with firm, address, phone number and e-mail] Hogan Lovells US LLP Keller Postman, LLC ________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ 150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4100, Chicago, IL 60606 555 Thirteenth Street, N.W.

Case 23-910, Document 86, 09/27/2023, 3574784, Page3 of 7 The undersigned counsel respectfully moves for leave to appear pro hac vice as counsel for Plaintiff-Respondents, the States of Texas, Idaho, Indiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Carolina, and South Dakota (“Plaintiff- Respondent States”) in the Petition for Writ of Mandamus by Petitioner-Defendant Google LLC of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s June 5, 2023 Order.

Undersigned counsel is an attorney from Keller Postman, LLC who is seeking to appear pro hac vice in this action pursuant to Local Rule 46.1(d)(3).

Alexandria Division UNITED STATES, etal., Plaintiffs,

Pursuant to Local Rule 83.1, the United States hereby submits Brent K. Nakamura’s Motion to Withdraw as Attorney for the United States in the above-captioned matter.

Mr. Nakamura entered a Notice of Appearancein this matter on December 22, 2023 (ECF No.506).

Other counsel for the United States who have appeared and remain counsel on this the docketin this matter will continue to represent the United States and Plaintiffs as attorneys of record in this matter.

Leonie M. Brinkema United States District Judge |/2fax Dated: January 24, 2025 Respectfully submitted,

Nonetheless, on a motion to compel arbitration, we may determine that an agreement to arbitrate exists where the notice of the arbitration provision was reasonably conspicuous and manifestation of assent unambiguous as a matter of ...

Rather than burden the Court with (yet further) duplicative briefing, Plain- tiff States incorporate their Response to Petition for Mandamus, ECF No. 32 (“Re- sponse”), rather than retread ground thoroughly explored.

In this instance, as explained in more detail in the mandamus response (at 4-5), Congress has already liquidated where the public interest lies: in encouraging “vigorous anti- trust enforcement” by States to address the “crisis” of monopolization that is sweeping “[m]any industries” that is threatening “consumers, workers, and com- petition.” Letter from Sen. Amy Klobuchar, et al., to Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf at 1 (July 28, 2021), https://tinyurl.com/rajzhdvd.

Case 23-910, Document 64, 08/14/2023, 3556022, Page7 of 11 grant the stay by recalling its own mandate.7 After hearing Plaintiffs States’ response, the JPML easily dismissed Google’s merits arguments—which supposedly took a week to write—as “largely repe[titive]” and “unpersuasive.”8 By that time, how- ever, Google had effectively gotten the stay pending appeal it wanted: the case had languished on the JPML’s docket for 67 days, more than six times the period this Court allotted to State Plaintiffs to respond to Google’s mandamus petition.

As discussed at length in Plaintiff States’ Response, Google is unlikely to suc- ceed on the merits because this case calls for the straightforward application of Ex parte Collett, 337 U.S. 55 (1949), and United States v. National City Lines, Inc., 337 U.S. 78 (1949) (National City Lines II), where the Supreme Court squarely held that because “[n]o one has a vested right in any given mode of procedure,” changes to venue rules apply to cases pending at the time those rules become effective.

Consistent with its repeated failure to follow established norms of issue preser- vation, Google now makes a new argument that it did not even raise in its petition for mandamus.