D.C. No. Southern District of California, San Diego

Case: 19-56514, 08/17/2021, ID: 12203715, DktEntry: 129, Page 6 of 6 THOMAS, Chief Judge:

Virtual en banc oral argument will take place during the week of September 20, 2021.

Within seven days from the date of this order, the parties shall forward to the Clerk of Court eighteen additional paper copies of the original briefs and ten additional paper copies of the excerpts of record.

The paper copies must be accompanied by certification (attached to the end of each copy of the brief) that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically.

Both 4 Case: 22-15293, 09/21/2023, ID: 12796849, DktEntry: 69, Page 9 of 24 agreed to grant Instagram a nonexclusive license to publicly reproduce and display the content they upload and post.

Plaintiffs nonetheless insist this case is different because it involves “whether secondary liability lies against Instagram,” not whether the embedding websites directly infringed copyright.

And because that view is at odds with the plain language of the Copyright Act (supra pp. 10-13), none is likely to do so.

D.C. No. Southern District of California, San Diego

MORAN FOODS, LLC, DBA Save-A-Lot;

SEAFOODS, LLC, DBA Chicken of the Sea International, DBA Thai Union Group PCL, DBA Thai Union North America, Inc.;

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35-3.

Judges McKeown, Wardlaw, Berzon, Owens, Miller, Collins, Bress, and Forrest did not participate in the deliberations or vote in this case.

D.C. No. Southern District of California, San Diego

RUSHIN GOLD, LLC, DBA The Gold Rush; UNIFIED GROCERS, INC.; Case: 19-56514, 08/03/2021, ID: 12190392, DktEntry: 128, Page 4 of 6

Case: 19-56514, 08/03/2021, ID: 12190392, DktEntry: 128, Page 6 of 6 THOMAS, Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35-3.

Judges McKeown, Wardlaw, Berzon, Owens, Miller, Collins, Bress, and Forrest did not participate in the deliberations or vote in this case.

There will be a conference on May 21, 2024 at 2 p.m. in Courtroom 11D regarding the subpoena served by MDL Plaintiffs on the plaintiffs in the Texas Action.

Dated: New York, New York May 14, 2024

Defendants Google LLC (“Google”) and Alphabet Inc. (“Alphabet”), the Advertiser Plaintiffs (as defined below), and Plaintiff Sunny Singh (‘“Singh,” and collectively with the other defined parties, the “Parties”) stipulate and agree as follows: WHEREAS, on November 18, 2022, the Court stayed any motion practice onall state law claims in this MDL under Pre-Trial Order No. 4, without prejudice to the right of any party to apply to the Court to dissolve the stay ninety days after entry of the order (ECF No. 392); WHEREAS,on December 2, 2022, Hanson Law Office, Cliffy Care Landscaping,Inc.

(Count VI) based on Google’s Unified Pricing Rules (“UPR”) and line-item capping; WHEREAS, on February 3, 2023, Google and Alphabet filed a motion to dismiss the federal claims in the Advertiser Plaintiffs’ CAC (ECF No. 446); Vitor Lindo, Raintree Medical and Chiropractic Center, LLC, and Rodrock Chiropractic PA were also named Advertiser Plaintiffs at the time of filing (ECF No. 399).

(Count V1); WHEREAS,on May 1, 2023, the Singh action was transferred to the Southern District of New York and consolidated and coordinated with the MDL for pre-trial proceedings (Singh v. Google LLC, No. 23-cv-03651 (S.D.N.Y.)); WHEREAS, on September 8, 2023, Google and Alphabet filed a motion to dismiss the federal claims in the Singh Complaint (ECF No. 625); WHEREAS, on March 1, 2024, the Court dismissed the Advertiser Plaintiffs’ and Singh’s federal antitrust claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act (Count V) arising from UPR andline- item capping (ECF No. 701); WHEREAS, on March 1, 2024, the Court entered an order, based onthe stipulation of the parties (see ECF No. 588-1), that any ruling by the Court on the pending motions to dismiss the Advertisers’ CAC, except a ruling regarding issues of individual named plaintiffs’ obligations to arbitrate claims against Defendants Google and Alphabet, would be deemedto apply to the Singh Complaint (ECF No. 702); NOW THEREFORE,the Parties, through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 1...

antitrust claims under California law arising from UPR andline-item capping, whichare set forth

Notwithstanding this dismissal, the Parties reserve all rights of appeal relating to the Advertiser Plaintiffs’ and Plaintiff Singh’s claims arising from UPR and line-item capping.

SINGH v. GOOGLE LLC PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Defendants Google LLC (“Google”), Alphabet Inc. (“Alphabet”), Meta Platforms Inc. (“Meta”), the Advertiser Plaintiffs (as defined below) and Plaintiff Sunny Singh (“Singh,” and collectively with the other defined parties, the “Parties”’) stipulate and agree as follows: WHEREAS,on November18, 2022, the Court stayed any motion practice onall state law claims in this MDL under Pre-Trial Order No. 4, without prejudice to the right of any party to apply to the Court to dissolve the stay ninety days after entry of the order (Dkt. 392); WHEREAS,on December 2, 2022, Hanson Law Office, Cliffy Care Landscaping, Inc. and Kinin,Inc.

1:21-md-03010-PKC Document 752-1 Filed 04/18/ Page 2of4 Case 1:21-md-03010-PKC Document.771 Filed 05/01/24 Page 2 of 4 alia, claims against Google and Meta arising from the Network Bidding Agreement (“NBA”) based on Section | of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 (Count IID) and the Cartwright Act, Cal.

(Count IV); WHEREAS, on May 1, 2023, the Singh action was transferred to the Southern District of New York and consolidated and coordinated with the MDLfor pre-trial proceedings (Singh v. Google LLC, 23-cv-03651 (S.D.N.Y.)); WHEREAS,on September 8, 2023, Google, Alphabet, and Meta filed motionsto dismiss the federal claims in the Singh Complaint (Dkt. Nos. 625 & 628); WHEREAS, on March1, 2024, the Court dismissed the Advertiser Plaintiffs’ and Singh’s federal antitrust claim arising from the NBA against Meta, Google and Alphabet based on Section 1 of the Sherman Act (Count IIT) (Dkt. No. 701); WHEREAS, on March 1, 2024, the Court entered an order, based on the stipulation of the parties (see Dkt. No. 588-1), that any ruling by the Court on the pending motions to dismiss the Advertisers’ CAC, except a ruling regarding issues of individual

Case 1:21-md-03010-PKC Document.771 Filed 05/01/24 Page 3 of 4 namedplaintiffs’ obligations to arbitrate claims against Defendants Google and Alphabet, would be deemedto apply to the Singh Complaint (Dkt. No. 702); NOW THEREFORE,the Parties, through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: lL.

Notwithstanding this dismissal, the Parties reserveall rights of appeal relating to the Advertiser Plaintiffs’ and Plaintiff Singh’s claimsarising from the NBA.

None of these companies covers the repair of windshield cracks longer than six inches due to Safelite’s false 4 statements about the safety and durability of such repairs.

Campfield provides examples of each kind of communication, but none of the communications described concerns a claim for insurance benefits by an individual consumer.

(1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 977 [misrepresentation is material “if ‘a reasonable man would attach importance to its existence or nonexistence in determining his choice of action in the transaction in question’ ”].) Nor is it apparent how Safelite ...

-----------------------------------------------------------x CASTEL, Senior District Judge: Google seeks the inclusion of additional custodians in Daily Mail’s search for responsive documents relating to Daily Mail’s claim for damages and causation of damages.

The parties had extensive negotiations over the identities of custodians in connection with a search of Daily Mail files.

The dispute has been whittled down from 13 proposed additional custodians to two: Martin Clarke, former editor of MailOnline, said to be focused principally on editorial decision making, and Paul Zwillenberg, former CEO of Daily Mail’s parent company.

Google cites an article in which Clarke touts the significance of digital advertising to Daily Mail’s profit picture and emails indicating that he was an attendee at a meeting attended by other designated custodians.

As to Zwillenberg, Google cites to a press report that he was hired because of his experience with digital advertising.

Case: 19-56514, 05/24/2021, ID: 12122457, DktEntry: 127, Page 1 of 2

D.C. No. Southern District of California, San Diego

Case: 19-56514, 05/24/2021, ID: 12122457, DktEntry: 127, Page 2 of 2 Before: KLEINFELD, HURWITZ, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

The amicus brief submitted on May 19, 2021, by Public Justice, P.C. is filed.

No paper copies are required at this time.

Case: 19-56514, 05/24/2021, ID: 12122440, DktEntry: 125, Page 1 of 2

D.C. No. Southern District of California, San Diego

Case: 19-56514, 05/24/2021, ID: 12122440, DktEntry: 125, Page 2 of 2 Before: KLEINFELD, HURWITZ, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

The amicus brief submitted on May 19, 2021, by The Committee to Support the Antitrust Laws is filed.

No paper copies are required at this time.

Case: 19-56514, 05/24/2021, ID: 12122436, DktEntry: 124, Page 1 of 2

D.C. No. Southern District of California, San Diego

Before: KLEINFELD, HURWITZ, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

The amicus brief submitted on May 19, 2021 by American Antitrust Institute is filed.

No paper copies are required at this time.

Case: 19-56514, 05/24/2021, ID: 12122414, DktEntry: 123, Page 1 of 2

D.C. No. Southern District of California, San Diego

Before: KLEINFELD, HURWITZ, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

The amicus brief submitted on May 19, 2021 by Impact Fund, Bet Tzedek, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Centro Legal de la Raza, Legal Aid at Work, and Public Counsel is filed.

No paper copies are required at this time.

Case: 19-56514, 05/24/2021, ID: 12122448, DktEntry: 126, Page 1 of 2

D.C. No. Southern District of California, San Diego

Before: KLEINFELD, HURWITZ, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

The amicus brief submitted on May 19, 2021 by Public Citizen, Inc. is filed.

No paper copies are required at this time.

The carefully crafted Order addresses coordination between the Eastern District of Virginia Action and this MDL.

It was entered in the context of this Court’s November 21, 2022 Order (PTO 5; ECF 394) setting the date for the conclusion of fact discovery of June 28, 2024.

The MDL plaintiffs have now presented the Court with a proposed Order Coordinating discovery in this MDL with discovery in a factually related action in the Eastern District of Texas (ECF 700).

Neither side has addressed the impact of the proposed Order on this Court’s pre-existing and generous schedule for the completion of fact discovery.

The Court expresses its appreciation to Judge Jordan and the Special Master in the Texas case.