Uponcareful considerationofthe parties’ oral and written arguments, the relevant legal authorities, and the entire record in this case, the Court will grant Intervenors’ motion to clarify, having concludedthat defendants are required under Order #1015 to publish the discovery materials produced in the JUUL MDLonPhilip Morris’s Internet Document Website.!

After substantial pretrial proceedings and discovery and a nine-month benchtrial, Judge Kessler found in 2006 that defendants had violated RICO “by engaging in a lengthy, unlawful conspiracy to deceive the American public about the health effects of smoking and environmental tobacco smoke, the addictiveness of nicotine, the health benefits from low tar, ‘light’ cigarettes, and their manipulation of the design and composition of cigarettes in order to sustain nicotine addiction.” United States v. Philip Morris USA,Inc., 449 F. Supp.

Admin., Civil Action No. 14-0403, 2015 WL 13889866, at *3 (D.D.C. Aug. 19, 2015), courts in this circuit have encouraged parties to request clarification when they are uncertain about the scope of a ruling or its application “in a concrete context or particular factual situation.” United States v. Corp., 758 F.3d 330, 344 (D.C. Cir. 2014); Barnes v. District of Columbia, 289 F.R.D.

To prevent uncertainty and confusion on the part of the enjoined party, an injunction must provide “explicit notice of precisely what conduct is outlawed.” United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 566 F.3d at 1137 (quoting Schmidt v. Lessard, 414 U.S. 473, 476 (1974)); see also 11A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, ARTHUR R. MILLER & MARY KAY KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2955 (3d ed. 2022) (“The drafting standard established by Rule 65(d) is that an ordinary person reading the court’s order should be able to ascertain from the documentitself exactly what conductis proscribed.”).

Morethan a decade after Judge Kessler found the defendants liable under RICO for “engaging in a lengthy, unlawful conspiracy to deceive the American public about ... the addictiveness of nicotine,” United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 449 F. Supp.