This stipulation is entered into by and between the plaintiffs in Biddle v. The Walt Disney Company, No. 22-cv-07317-EJD (the “Biddle Plaintiffs”),1 the plaintiffs in Fendelander v. The Walt Disney Company, No. 22-cv-07533-EJD (the “Fendelander Plaintiffs”),2 and the defendant in both actions, The Walt Disney Company (“Disney”), through their respective undersigned counsel, as follows: WHEREAS, on November 18, 2022, a putative class action complaint was filed in Biddle v. The Walt Disney Company, No. 22-cv-07317-EJD (the “Biddle action”); WHEREAS, on November 30, 2022, a putative class action complaint was filed in Fendelander v. The Walt Disney Company, No. 22-cv-07533-EJD (the “Fendelander action”); WHEREAS, on December 7, 2022, the Court found that the Biddle and Fendelander actions should be related; WHEREAS the parties in the Biddle and Fendelander actions are represented by the same counsel; WHEREAS, the complaints in the two actions are nearly identical, with the only substantive distinction being the streaming live pay television (“SLPTV”) provider to which each set of plaintiffs subscribed (YouTube TV for the Biddle Plaintiffs; DirecTV Stream for the Fendelander Plaintiffs) and accordingly the putative class they seek to represent; WHEREAS, on January 31, 2023, Disney filed substantially identical (except with respect to YouTube TV and DirecTV Stream) motions to dismiss both the Biddle and Fendelander complaints; WHEREAS, on September 30, 2023, the Court issued substantially identical (except with respect to YouTube TV and DirecTV Stream) orders granting in part and denying in part Disney’s

P. 42(a)(2), “[i]f actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may ... consolidate the actions”; WHEREAS, in exercising its “broad discretion” to consolidate actions under Rule 42(a), a district court “weighs the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984); accord In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litig., 2018 WL 11360203, at *1 (N.D. Cal.

); WHEREAS, consolidation of the Biddle and Fendelander actions for all purposes would promote efficiency during discovery and (if necessary) at trial, without causing any anticipated inconvenience, delay, or expense; WHEREAS, nothing in this stipulation is intended to assert, stipulate to, waive, or abandon any fact, argument, or position with respect to any issues other than consolidation of the Biddle and Fendelander actions; THEREFORE, the parties, by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree that, subject to the Court’s approval, the Biddle and Fendelander actions are consolidated for all purposes pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

1) The Biddle v. Disney and Fendelander v. Disney actions currently pending in this District, and any action arising out of the same or similar operative facts now pending or hereafter filed in, removed to, or transferred to this District shall be consolidated for pre-trial purposes pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

4) All papers previously filed and served to date in the 5:22-cv-07533 case are part of the record in 5:22-cv-07317 EJD.

Re: ECF No. 19, 43 Plaintiffs Heather Biddle, Jeffrey Kaplan, Zachary Robertys, and Joel Wilson bring this antitrust putative class action lawsuit against Defendant The Walt Disney Company (“Disney”) on behalf of all monthly subscribers of YouTube TV, from the period beginning April 1, 2019, through the present (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”).

“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

Plaintiffs allege that the Disney Entities and SLPTV providers entered into carriage agreements containing the ESPN base term and MFN clause, which purportedly restrains competition.

For example, Plaintiffs describe a Carriage and Streaming Infrastructure Barrier to Entry (“CSIBE”) which requires expensive servers with significant computing power that are capable of processing high resolution video and with Case No.: 5:22-cv-07317-EJD

“Disney thus maintains a cost input into each market participant’s product, and can prevent or retard entry by mandating onerous terms or by outright refusing to license live television content.” Case No.: 5:22-cv-07317-EJD

& [PROPOSED] ORDER RE SEALING WHEREAS, this Court’s November 18, 2022 Amended Scheduling Order set a schedule for briefing associated with Consumer Plaintiffs’ and Advertiser Plaintiffs’ motions for class certification, and any related Daubert motions.

WHEREAS, given that Paragraph 31 appears to suggest that the Omnibus Sealing Motions will supersede any interim sealing motions that would ordinarily accompany the parties’ opening briefs, opposition briefs, and reply briefs, the parties believe it will be most efficient for the Court, the parties, and any implicated non-parties to handle all sealing issues in Omnibus Sealing Motions to be filed following the completion of class certification and related Daubert briefing.

WHEREAS, the parties have conferred and jointly propose, subject to the Court’s approval, certain modifications to this Court’s procedures for sealing of filings associated with class certification and any related Daubert briefing for efficiency and to reduce burden on the Court, the parties, and any implicated non-parties.

The parties are mindful of the Court’s instructions that sealing requests should be few, narrowly tailored, and well-supported.

The parties shall file redacted versions of class certification and (if necessary) Daubert briefs, as well as any responses and replies to such motions, and any associated supporting documents, as separate entries on the ECF docket; and The parties shall also contemporaneously file unredacted copies of all documents on the ECF docket provisionally under seal, along with a one-page interim sealing motion which may indicate that the reasons for sealing will be discussed in a forthcoming Omnibus Sealing Motion; and The parties and any non-parties shall jointly file Omnibus Sealing Motions on November 21, 2023 (two-and-a-half weeks after completion of class certification and Daubert motion briefing), or any date that this Court chooses following the completion of class certification and Daubert motion briefing.