Back to our regularly scheduled programming: In just a few mins, Judge Castel up in NY is holding his first conference in the Google advertising antitrust cases.
One thing he may rule on today: how much of the complaints becomes public. @politico and other news org via @rcfp had some views on that we shared with the court last week (We want it all unredacted, pretty please!) storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
I am covering remotely, which means we get to start by playing that fun game: "how many people does it take asking for everyone to mute before it finally happens"
Judge Castel says he wasn't expecting to get this case and was in fact "rooting" for it to go elsewhere. “I wasn’t anybody’s first choice and I don’t at all feel insulted.”
Castel says he's inclined to stay all the private cases while the state AG suit goes through the motion to dismiss process. The private cases could then amend to drop/add whatever claims from the states' suits go forward.
Castel raises some concerns about Kellogg Hansen representing The Daily Mail in the case because the same law firm is representing Facebook in the FTC's case.
John Thorne of Kellogg Hansen says Daily Mail did an extensive investigation before filing its suit, has spent nearly a million on expert fees and has worked with DOJ and the state of Texas, and decided not to sue Facebook only Google.
Castel says he will require KH to brief on why there is not a conflict for them to remain as the lawyers for Daily Mail when others within their class are suing both FB and Google. He's concerned that it will make joint meetings with plaintiffs too difficult.
Castel says he will rule on the redaction issue "shortly" but invited any additional briefs (so sounds like not from the bench today. Sad)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
