The Court sets the following case management deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and Civil Local Rule 16-10.

Last day to file dispositive and Daubert motions April 28, 2025 Event Deadline Pretrial conference Jury Trial Thursday, September 25, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. Monday, November 17, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. All dates set by the Court should be regarded as firm.

Counsel may not modify these dates by stipulation without leave of court.

Requests for continuances are disfavored, and scheduling conflicts that are created subsequent to the date of this order by any party, counsel or party- controlled expert or witness will not be considered good cause for a continuance.

Sanctions may issue for a failure to follow a scheduling or other pretrial order.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that discovery as to all Defendants is stayed pending the Court’s resolution of the Motions to Compel Arbitration1 (Dkt. #32, Dkt. #46, Dkt. #47, Dkt. #48).

Further, it is ORDERED that Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.’s Opposed Motion to Extend Deadlines in First Amended Scheduling Order Pending Resolution Of Threshold Issues (Dkt. #119) is DENIED as moot.

In its Motion, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. suggests that the Court sever and transfer venue or dismiss the claims against it (Dkt. #46 at p. 1).

In its motion, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. requests the Court dismiss the claims against it (Dkt. #47 at p. 1).

Lastly, Morgan Stanley, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC request that the Court find that “(1) Plaintiff has elected litigation or require Plaintiff to affirmatively elect litigation or arbitration, (2) compel Plaintiff to arbitration if Plaintiff elects arbitration as per Morgan Stanley’s agreements and dismiss any claims against the Morgan Stanley Defendants, and (3) if Plaintiff has elected litigation, sever Plaintiff’s claims against the Morgan Stanley Defendants from the remaining named Defendants and transfer those claims to the Southern District of New York.

COURT REPORTER: Christine Bickham COURTROOM DEPUTY: Keary Conrad Case Number: 4:24-CV-459

Barrett Armbruster, Andrew Buttaro, Douglass Brown, Frances Fink, and Angela Zambrano On this day, came the parties by their attorneys and the following proceedings were held in Sherman, TX:

Defendant Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated’s counsel, Andrew Buttaro begins argument.

Defendant Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.’s counsel, Frances Fink begins argument.

Defendant Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.’s counsel, Frances Fink begins argument.

The certification request rises or falls on the validity and reliability of the opinions of the user plaintiffs’ economist, Dr. Nicholas Economides, with respect to antitrust injury and other elements required for proof of a monopolization claim.

To be clear, FRE 702 “does not license a court to engage in freeform factfinding, to select between competing versions of the evidence, or to determine the veracity of the expert’s conclusions at the admissibility stage.” Elosu v. Middlefork Ranch Inc., 26 F.4th 1017, 1026 (9th Cir. 2022).

Meta’s main criticism is that Dr. Economides’ antitrust injury opinion, namely that Facebook users suffered the loss of direct payments for their data that they assertedly would have received in the but-for world, is unsupported by the record.

Dr. Economides did not credibly explain why no social-media company, or firm in the PSNS market, has tried to compete by paying rivals, even as he maintains that Facebook would change its product structure do just that when faced with competition.

A claim of attempted monopolization requires demonstrating “(1) specific intent to control prices or destroy competition; (2) predatory or anticompetitive conduct directed at accomplishing that purpose; (3) a dangerous probability of achieving ‘monopoly power’; and (4) causal antitrust injury.” Rebel Oil Co., Inc. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 51 F.3d 1421, 1433 (9th Cir. 1995).