In order to maximize public access to the parties’ Post-Trial Submissions while providing for the protection of confidential information as allowed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 5.1(h), it is hereby ORDERED that all parties and non-parties shall comply with each of the directives set forth below governing the disclosure of information designated as “Confidential Information” or “Highly Confidential Information” pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order entered in this matter, ECF No. 98 or the Stipulated Order on the Use of Confidential Information at Trial, ECF No. 647: 1.

To facilitate expedient public access to the Post-Trial Submissions, the Court orders that, by February 23, 2024, the parties shall file public, redacted versions of the Post-Trial Submissions that are consistent with the confidentiality rulings, redactions, and disclosures to the cited documents and testimony made at trial.

To facilitate the subsequent filing of versions of the Post-Trial Submissions with redactions consistent with the Court’s guidance and United States v. Hubbard, 650 F.2d 293 (D.C. Cir. 1980), the Court orders: a. If a party quoted or described in its Post-Trial Submissions any information not previously disclosed publicly at trial that a non-party maintained as Confidential or Highly Confidential, then by February 16, 2024, the party shall provide the applicable non-party with notice of the information quoted or described so that the non-party may identify any redactions it contends are warranted.

c. By February 28, 2024, non-parties shall provide proposed redactions to information quoted or described in the parties’ Post-Trial Submissions in response to the notices referenced in Paragraph 2(a).

e. By March 8, 2024, the parties and non-parties shall complete any necessary meet- and-confers regarding proposed redactions by Google or non-parties to the parties’ Post-Trial Submissions.

Before the Court is Google’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limit.

After considering the Motion, the Court finds that it should be

It is therefore ORDERED that Google may file 45 total pages of motions to dismiss and 139 pages of attachments, with the briefing divided between the previously filed 15-page Rule 12(b)(1) brief, (Dkt. #200), and the 30-page Rule 12(b)(6) brief that Google proposes to re-file no later than February 8, 2024.

This case concerns issues similar to those raised in MDL 3010 and United

(Dkt. #194 at 5).

Accordingly, the Court directed the parties to confer and make a joint proposal concerning a potential coordinated discovery order, or, if they could not agree on a joint proposal, to submit separate submissions.

The parties were unable to reach an agreement and have submitted separate proposals regarding coordination.

Pursuant to the Court’s Order Appointing Special Master, (Dkt. #213 at 10), the Court refers the parties’ submissions concerning coordinated discovery, (Dkt. #214, #215, #216), to the Special Master for consideration and entry of a report and recommended disposition.

In total, and exclusive of attachments, Google filed forty-five pages of dispositive motions with the Court.

In response to Plaintiff States’ argument based on Local Rule CV-7, Google contends that the States’ position lacks merit because “[c]ourts in this district do not strike dispositive motions on technicalities when there is no prejudice.” (Dkt. #211 n.2).

They rely on a plain reading of the text of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(g), which states in relevant part:

Nationwide Bi-Weekly Admin., Inc. v. Belo Corp., 512 F.3d 137, 141 (5th Cir. 2007) (“However, Rule 12(g) did not require consolidation here because Rule 12(h)(2) explicitly excepts from the consolidation requirement motions based on the defense of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”); Doe v. Columbia -Brazoria Indep.

Google has filed two dismissal motions, totaling forty-five pages, without requesting leave from the Court in accordance with the local rules.

As the Advisory Committee Notes to the 2003 amendments to Rule 53 explain, a master’s duties may include “matters that could be addressed by a judge, such as reviewing discovery documents for privilege, or duties that might not be suitable for a judge.” The Advisory Committee Notes further observe that, “[t]he appointment of masters to participate in pretrial proceedings has developed extensively” over recent decades, to assist district courts in “managing complex litigation.” However, courts are cautioned that a Special Master should be appointed “only when the need is clear.” FED. R. CIV.

Challenging Google’s alleged misconduct in the display advertising market, the States of Texas, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah, and the Commonwealths of Kentucky and Puerto Rico, have asserted federal and state antitrust claims, as well as claims under the various States’ deceptive trade practices laws.

Google has produced approximately six million documents from over 150 custodians to the Plaintiff States.2 This production, however, has also been accompanied by numerous privilege logs comprised of nearly 500,000 individual entries.

Finally, both MDL 3010 and a case brought by the Department of Justice in the Eastern District of Virginia, United States et al. v. Google LLC, No. 1:23-CV- 00108-LMB-JFA, concern similar issues related to Google’s display advertising business and, thus, offer opportunities for coordinated discovery going forward.

P. 53(c)(1) (providing that the Special Master has authority to “regulate all proceedings;” “take all appropriate measures to perform the assigned duties fairly and efficiently;” and “if conducting an evidentiary hearing, exercise the appointing court’s power to compel, take, and record evidence”).