I write to respectfully request a 31-day extension of the City’s time to move for reconsideration of the Court’s August 23, 2024 Opinion & Order, (ECF No. 577).

However, additional time is needed to discuss the City’s anticipated motion with my colleagues and client and to draft the motion, and because of my relatively recent appearance in this yearslong case, I must also further familiarize myself with the history, filings, and decisions that relate to the Court’s Opinion and Order.

In light of this, I respectfully request that the deadline for the City’s motion for reconsideration be extended by thirty-one days to October 7, 2024.

Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3, the City’s current deadline to move for reconsideration is September 6, 2024.

Should this application be more appropriately addressed to Judge Wood, I am happyto refile it at the Court’s direction.

United States Court of Appeals

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 28th day of August, two thousand twenty-four.

Present: Eunice C. Lee, Beth Robinson, Maria Araújo Kahn, Circuit Judges.

Aug 29 2024 In re Google Digital Advertising Antitrust Litigation.

Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the requests are GRANTED and both appeals are dismissed without prejudice to reinstatement on the written request of the Appellants within 30 days of the entry of an order or judgment disposing of the multi-district litigation in district court.

At that point, it is ACS’s responsibility to provide the Contract Agencies with important information, including: the language the child speaks; the child’s medical background, 2 Courts have recognized that children in foster care have a substantive due process right to protection from harm while in state custody.

that, without improvements in the systems used for recording and tracking caseworkers’ notes, ACS has limited assurance that the Contract Agencies are making appropriate decisions, and that these case documentation failures may place foster care children at an increased risk of mental or physical harm.

The Court is satisfied that whether ACS ensures that training, case management and permanency planning practices utilized in the NYCFCS lessen the risk of injury for children in its custody are common questions capable of classwide resolution.

This argument misconstrues 8 In addition, Plaintiffs allege that OCFS’s NYC Regional Director testified that State Defendants had knowledge of IOC’s poor performance, and that he did not know whether OCFS had ever considered declining the reauthorization of IOC.

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs have offered sufficient evidence at this stage of the case to demonstrate that whether OCFS exercises adequate oversight of ACS is a common question capable of classwide resolution.

Based on the prior motions for a stay, the Order of May 15, 2024 in 21 md 3010 (ECF 798), the Orders and Mandates of the Second Circuit in 21 cv 6870 (ECF 110) and 21 cv 7045 (ECF 75), and the representations in the letter dated August 16, 2024 in 21 cv 3010 (ECF 867), the Court now GRANTS the motions for a stay of the judgments in 21 cv 6870 (ECF 101), and 21 cv 7045 (ECF 66), for the reason that the stay will avoid repetitive appeals of the same issue by different parties in different actions that are part of this coordinated multi-district litigation.

The stay shall remain in effect until a further Order of this Court made on application of the parties.

Dated: New York, New York August 19, 2024

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 30th day of July, two thousand twenty-four.

Present: Eunice C. Lee, Beth Robinson, Maria Araújo Kahn, Circuit Judges.

The Appellants in both appeals move, under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.1, for remand of their cases to district court in order to obtain rulings on Appellants’ Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) motions.

Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the motions are GRANTED and both cases are remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

The parties must promptly notify the Court when the district court has ruled on the Rule 60(b)(6) motions and whether the appeals should be dismissed at that time.

For good cause shown, the Court hereby amends the Scheduling Order (Pre-Trial Order Due Date September 13, 2024 October 21, 2024 November 18, 2024 December 30, 2024 January 10, 2025 No. 5) as follows: Event Plaintiffs’ Opening Expert Reports Defendants’ Responsive Expert Reports Plaintiffs’ Rebuttal Expert Reports Expert Discovery Cutoff Pre-Motion Letter for Summary Judgment Motions and Class Certification Motions

41 (a) (A) Gi IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREEDbythe parties and their respective counsel that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 41(a)(1)(A)GD,the claims of Plaintiff Sterling International Consulting Group (“SICG”) are voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice, from the above-captioned action, due to SICG’s inability to continue as a named Plaintiff due to the health of its sole employee.

This stipulation of voluntary dismissal does not prevent SICG’s possible future participation as an absent class memberif the proposedclass is certified.

This stipulation shall not be read to dismiss any of the claims of any other MDL plaintiff.

woe poEee ae eeca By: Justina K. Sessions

-----------------------------------------------------------x CASTEL, Senior District Judge: The Court is sympathetic to the circumstances outlined in the letter of June 28, 2024 (ECF 855) relating to the sole proprietor of Cliffy Care Landscaping LLC (“Cliffy Care”).

The Court is also understanding of Google’s position that no witness has been produced by Cliffy Care for deposition (ECF 852).

A representation from a treating physician setting forth: the physician’s credentials and relationship to the patient; the patient’s age, gender and diagnosed medical conditions and prognosis; and the treating physician’s opinion of when, if ever, the patient is likely to be physically able to sit for an examination under oath of not more than seven hours in length;

In view of the submission of Cliffy Care, that states that the patient “has resumed running many aspects of his business” but cannot provide oral deposition testimony,” a declaration from the individual setting forth the nature of work performed during the month of June 2024, including the number of hours worked;

The offer made by Cliffy Care delays a deposition by the sole proprietor or a Rule 30(b)(6) substitute until possibly late August with no stated consequence if an adequately knowledgeable witness is not produced by then.

21-md-3010 (PKC) This Document Relates to:

Google LLC has decided to withdraw its motion to compel against Havas Media Group USA, LLC, which Google fully briefed and filed a motion to set a hearing in the transferring court (C.D.

As a result, Google responds to the Court’s order to show cause dated June 27, 2024 by stating that this proceeding may be dismissed by the Court.

In light of Google's withdrawal of its motion to compel, the Clerk is directed to terminate the pending motion in Google LLC v. Havas Media Group, 24 Civ.

3063 (PKC), and to close that case.

One subpoena was issued by the Clerk of Court for this District under the caption State of Texas, et al. v. Google LLC, 21 Civ.

The second subpoena was issued by the Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in connection with United States, et al., v. Google LLC, 1:23 Civ.

Both subpoenas were issued to Havas Media Group USA, LLC (“Havas”), which is a non-party to the underlying actions, and is described by Google as an “advertising agency” and “industry participant.” (24 Civ.

The only filing by either party since the April transfer of this case is the June 25, 2024 motion of Michael W. Drumke to withdraw as counsel to Google.

In the event that Google believes this proceeding should go forward, it shall show cause in writing why the subpoena issued in the Virginia Action ought not be quashed as moot, and, separately, show cause in writing explaining its failure to alert Judge Broderick of the proceeding’s relatedness to the MDL or to otherwise expedite the resolution of its motion in light of the imminent close of fact discovery in the MDL.

This Document Relates To: No. 1:21-md-3010 (PKC)

SUNNYSINGH,individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

41(a)(1)(A)(ii) IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED bythe parties and their respective counsel that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the individual claims ofPlaintiff Sunny Singh are voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice, from the above-captioned actions, with each party to bear its owncosts and attorney’s fees.

This stipulation shall not be read to dismiss any of the claims of any other MDLplaintiffs.

Google urges that the Third Amended Notice includes duplicative topics, would subject witnesses to a memory contest, and makes requests better suited to written responses or supplemental document productions.

Google notes that it has agreed to designate a witness to testify for up to 3.5 hours regarding Topics 6-10 of the Third Amended Notice, which relate to AdSense, and that this deposition is scheduled for June 28.

Topic 1 is directed to Display and Video, Apps and Analytics profit-and-loss statements (“DVAA P&Ls”), including “periodic reports created by Google’s controller, and other similar documents ... .” (Definition ¶ 22.)

Topic 4 relates to an “AdX/Open Bidding dataset” that appears to include a Bates range covering hundreds of thousands of pages.

Plaintiffs’ letter points to the deposition testimony of previous witnesses who were unable to recall details about the implementation and effects of these ad-auction practices.

There will be a discovery conference on June 20, 2024 at 4 p.m. in Courtroom 11D.

Dated: New York, New York June 18, 2024

Within seven days of submission of the Joint Final Pretrial Order (“JPTO”), Google shall produce to all plaintiffs governed by the JPTO copies of transcripts of any deposition of a listed trial witness (will call and may call) that was taken in the Texas Action.

Subject to the Federal Rules of Evidence, these transcripts may be used for impeachment purposes at trial.

The Court has considered the proposed interrogatories submitted by the Daily Mail and Gannett and directed to Google, the opposition of Google and the reply of the two plaintiffs.

The Court has considered the proposed interrogatories submitted by Google and directed to Gannett and Daily Mail and the opposition of the two plaintiffs.

The Court will allow the interrogatories, except Interrogatory No. 40 directed to the Publishers’ Putative Class, the Consolidated Advertisers’ Putative Class, the Sunny Singh Putative Class and the Inform action, Interrogatory No. 37 directed to the Stellman Putative Class and Interrogatory No. 28 directed to the Inform Action.

Nearly a month later, plaintiffs in the referenced actions sought a stay of the effectiveness of the judgment under Rule 60(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ.

The heart of the argument in support of the motion is as follows: The Motion will request the Court exercise its authority under the purposes and rules governing multi-district proceedings, as well as its inherent authority over its docket, to suspend or otherwise modify the judgements and orders in the SPX Cases.

This issue can be brought to the Second Circuit if and when it is appropriate at the conclusion of the MDL processes and at such time that consideration of the NBA is taken as a whole.

The Second Circuit’s review of all orders dismissing all claims related to the NBA should occur once and at the same time.

P., the Court has substantial doubt of its jurisdiction and authority to grant the motion during the pendency of the appeal.