T-Mobile and the seven AT&T and Verizon customers suing the carrier to vacate its 2020 Sprint buy on antitrust grounds, propose July 16, 2026, as the deadline for completing expert depositions in the case, said their joint status report Friday (docket 1:22-cv-03189) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin on Feb. 6 asked the parties to submit the joint expert discovery schedule by Friday. During telephone status conference that day, he rejected T-Mobile’s proposal for bifurcated discovery because he feared it would cause “undue delay” (see 2402060072).

Though fact discovery has ended in DOJ's Eastern Virginia antitrust case against Google, DOJ “demanded that, within three business days, Google produce all hyperlinked documents contained in 299 documents that Google’s experts cited in their expert reports or identify where those hyperlinks were previously produced,” said Google’s memorandum of law Wednesday (docket 1:23-cv-00108) in U.S. District Court in Alexandria in opposition. DOJ seeks to compel Google to produce all data and information referred to or relied on by its testifying experts. When Google wouldn't do so, DOJ moved to compel production, arguing that the expert stipulation and electronically stored information (ESI) order require it. “They do not,” said the memorandum. The expert stipulation requires production of only those materials that experts actually referred to or relied on, and Google’s experts did not refer to or rely on the hyperlinks that the DOJ seeks, it said. The ESI order doesn’t extend Google’s obligations “past the long-closed period for fact discovery,” and DOJ’s demands exceed the “reasonable and proportionate” requests that were authorized during fact discovery, “especially because they received all of the 299 documents months or years ago,” Google said. "Plaintiffs view their motion as a dress rehearsal for a long-running engagement," said the memorandum requesting that the court "make clear that this show must not go on." Fact discovery is closed, and "Google should have no obligation to produce any documents in this case over and above the six million that Plaintiffs have already received," it said. The Jan. 24, 2023, antitrust suit brought by DOJ and eight states alleges Google monopolized key technologies that make digital advertising possible. DOJ asserts Google’s “anticompetitive conduct” thwarted competition and “stifled innovation” in digital display advertising technology for 15 years.

Nothing in the FTC’s letter to the 9th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court Wednesday about Microsoft job cuts in its video game operations undermines “the primary reason” for the 9th Circuit to affirm the district court’s denial of the FTC’s injunction to block Microsoft’s Activision Blizzard buy, said Microsoft’s rebuttal letter Thursday (docket 23-15992). The FTC has failed to raise “a serious question as to whether Microsoft is likely to foreclose competition in the alleged console, subscription or cloud markets,” it said. The FTC’s letter told the 9th Circuit that Microsoft’s plan to cut 1,900 video game jobs “contradicts” its “representations” in the FTC’s appeal to temporarily pause Microsoft’s Activision buy pending the commission’s evaluation of the acquisition’s antitrust merits. The FTC told the 9th Circuit that Microsoft’s statements that the layoffs were part of an execution plan that would reduce areas of overlap between Microsoft and Activision is “inconsistent” with Microsoft’s suggestion to the 9th Circuit that the two companies “will operate independently post-merger.” But the FTC’s letter “provides no basis for undercutting” the district court’s denial of the injunction, said Microsoft’s rebuttal. “Moreover, the FTC’s factual assertions are incomplete and misleading,” it said. Consistent with broader trends in the gaming industry, Activision “was already planning on eliminating a significant number of jobs while still operating as an independent company,” said Microsoft. The recent announcement of 1,900 job cuts thus can’t be “attributed fully” to the combination, it said. Microsoft “continues fully to stand behind its representations” to the 9th Circuit, it said. “To be clear, while some overlap was identified and some jobs were eliminated,” Microsoft has structured and is operating the post-merger company “in a way that will readily enable it to divest any or all of the Activision businesses as robust market participants in the unlikely event that a divestiture ultimately is ordered,” it said. “This is precisely what Microsoft represented previously.”

U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin for Northern Illinois in Chicago adopted the parties’ suggested fact discovery cutoff date of Nov. 13, 2025, in the case brought by seven AT&T and Verizon customers seeking to vacate T-Mobile’s 2020 Sprint buy on anticompetitive grounds (see 2311030011). The date “seems reasonable, given the fairly complicated and extensive scope of discovery in this case,” the judge told a telephone status conference Tuesday (docket 1:22-cv-03189). Durkin also agrees with the parties to hold a status conference every 60 days, he said, with the next conference scheduled for April 5 at 9:15 a.m. CDT. He also ordered the parties to file a joint status report a week in advance of each status conference, though T-Mobile is concerned that raising any disputes in the status reports will discourage resolving those disputes without court intervention. The biggest, and only, disagreement between the parties is whether merits and class expert discovery "should be separated or proceed on the same track,” said the judge. “This case is already going slowly in my mind,” he said. “I believe there should be only one expert discovery period,” he said. “I think bifurcation will cause undue delay. It’s going to lead to some inefficiencies and, in my experience, endless disputes about whether certain expert discovery is class versus merits.” The parties currently propose that expert discovery not begin until December 2025, and “that’s almost two years from now,” said Durkin. He asked the parties to submit a joint expert discovery schedule by Friday.

Nonparties Altice, AT&T, Comcast and the 13 states that unsuccessfully challenged T-Mobile's 2020 Sprint buy won't oppose the motion of seven AT&T and Verizon plaintiffs to compel T-Mobile to produce trial exhibits and deposition transcripts from the 2019 T-Mobile/Sprint bench trial (see 2401180011), said T-Mobile and the seven plaintiffs in a joint statement Wednesday (docket 1:22-cv-03189) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. AT&T told the parties that it doesn’t think the AT&T documents at issue are relevant to the case, but that if any other nonparty files an opposition implicating broader issues, “it reserves the right to join that opposition,” said the statement. Feb. 7 is the deadline for the remaining nonparties -- Deutsche Telekom, Dish Network, Google, SoftBank and Verizon -- to file their oppositions to the motion to compel, it said. Replies are due Feb. 21, it said. The sought-after documents are “relevant and discoverable” under Rule 26 because they aren’t privileged and contain information directly related to the plaintiffs’ post-merger case, said the plaintiffs’ Jan. 17 motion. The plaintiffs contend the anticompetitive nature of the T-Mobile/Sprint transaction caused their own wireless rates to soar in the years since the transaction.

The seven AT&T and Verizon plaintiffs looking to vacate T-Mobile’s 2020 Sprint buy on antitrust grounds (see 2311030011) seek an order to compel T-Mobile to produce a limited number of trial exhibits and deposition transcripts and exhibits from the 2019 bench trial in the Southern District of New York in which multiple states unsuccessfully challenged the acquisition, said their motion Wednesday (docket 1:22-cv-03189) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. T-Mobile doesn’t oppose the motion, and has already produced the majority of trial exhibits and several deposition transcripts and exhibits from the New York case, it said. But the issue comes before the court because the requested material “includes non-party information designated confidential or highly confidential” under the protective order issued in the New York case, said the motion. The sought-after documents are “relevant and discoverable” under Rule 26 because they aren’t privileged and contain information directly related to the plaintiffs’ post-merger case, it said. Production of the “distilled set of pre-merger materials” also readily clears the Federal Rules’ standard for “proportionality,” it said. The protective order in the current post-merger case already entered by the court “will protect any information that remains genuinely confidential and sensitive,” it said. The affected nonparties -- Altice USA, Comcast and Dish Network -- “have been put on notice of the issue and have the opportunity to be heard,” it said.

Eleven consumers sued HP Friday over the company’s requirement that customers of certain of its printers use only HP-branded replacement ink cartridges, said an 80-count antitrust and consumer fraud class action (docket 1:24-cv-00164) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. HP required consumers who had bought its printers to use its cartridges, rather than buy ones from competitors, through firmware updates it distributed electronically to all registered owners of certain printers in late 2022 and early 2023, said the complaint. The firmware update “effectively disabled the printer if the user installed a replacement ink cartridge that was not HP-branded,” it said. During the same period, HP raised prices on its print cartridges, the complaint said, and “in effect,” created a “monopoly in the aftermarket for replacement cartridges, permitting it to raise prices without fear of being undercut by competitors.” A full HP-branded replacement ink cartridge set can cost $100 for many models, while competitors’ cartridges “may cost half as much,” it said. Among plaintiffs’ 80 claims are unjust enrichment and violations of numerous state consumer protection laws, the Sherman Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the complaint said. They seek an injunction requiring HP to disable the firmware updates that precluded the use of non-HP-branded replacement ink cartridges; compensatory, statutory and punitive damages; prejudgment interest; and attorneys’ fees and legal costs, it said.

The FTC hailed Friday’s order signed by U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos for Southern New York in Manhattan granting the agency’s motion for a preliminary injunction that blocks Iqvia’s Propel Media buy (see 2307200024). The FTC “has satisfied its burden of demonstrating that a preliminary injunction of the proposed acquisition is in the public interest,” said Ramos’ order (docket 1:23-cv-06188). The agency also has shown that there’s “a reasonable probability that the proposed acquisition will substantially impair competition in the relevant market and that the equities weigh in favor of injunctive relief,” said the order. The injunction is pending the commission’s administrative proceeding seeking to permanently block the proposed deal. An administrative trial is scheduled to begin Jan. 18. “We are pleased with the federal court’s decision and look forward to continuing to fight to permanently enjoin this anticompetitive deal via the Commission’s administrative proceedings,” said Bureau of Competition Director Henry Liu in a statement Wednesday.

The seven AT&T and Verizon customers seeking to vacate T-Mobile’s 2020 Sprint buy on anticompetitive grounds don’t dispute that their case would have been dismissed for lack of antitrust standing if it had been filed in the 2nd or 11th circuits, said T-Mobile. It filed its reply Friday (docket 1:22-cv-03189) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago in support of its motion to certify for interlocutory appeal to the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals the district court’s Nov. 2 denial of its motion to dismiss (see 2311290042). The plaintiffs also don’t dispute that if the district court grants certification and the 7th Circuit reverses, “this case will come to an immediate end, preserving substantial judicial and party resources and shielding nonparties from intrusive discovery,” said the brief. The plaintiffs “fail to identify any case, from any court, granting antitrust standing to consumers who are seeking to challenge the merger of a company with which they transact no business,” it said. As the amicus briefs from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (see 2312070029) and CTIA (see 2312120052) underscore, this legally and practically significant litigation “presents a textbook case for interlocutory review,” it said. The plaintiffs nevertheless urge the court to deny certification, but they “fundamentally misunderstand the nature of a motion to dismiss,” it said. They also ignore the many cases in which the U.S. Supreme Court, the 7th Circuit and other courts across the country have held that plaintiffs “lack antitrust standing on a motion to dismiss,” it said. There’s “at least room for reasonable debate” whether the plaintiffs “have sufficiently alleged” that T-Mobile/Sprint was “the direct and proximate cause” of alleged injuries to consumers who are supposedly paying higher prices not to T-Mobile, but to AT&T and Verizon, said the reply. “Before the doors of discovery are swung open,” the 7th Circuit “should be afforded the opportunity to definitively resolve that debatable, and highly consequential, question,” it said.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court’s Dec. 15 decision in Illumina v. FTC (docket 23-60167) “validates” U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley’s July 11 denial of the FTC’s motion for a preliminary injunction to block Microsoft’s Activision Blizzard buy “in multiple respects,” Microsoft counsel Rakesh Kilaru of Wilkinson Stekloff wrote the 9th Circuit in a letter Wednesday (docket 23-15992). The FTC argues in its appeal of Corley’s denial that precedent in the 9th Circuit entitles the FTC to an injunction under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act if it shows serious questions as to the antitrust merits of the Microsoft/Activision transaction (see 2312070002). The 5th Circuit’s decision in Illumina vacated an FTC order “unwinding a vertical merger through an administrative proceeding,” Kilaru told the 9th Circuit. The 5th Circuit “specifically endorsed Judge Corley’s approach to addressing post-merger solutions to alleged competitive concerns, squarely rejecting the FTC’s arguments in this appeal,” he said. The Illumina decision also rejected the FTC’s argument that post-merger agreements are relevant only if they entirely neutralize and undo any lessening of competition, he said. Again citing Corley’s opinion, Illumina deemed this argument “irreconcilable” with Section 7 of the Clayton Act, finding instead that a post-merger agreement need only sufficiently mitigate the merger’s effect such that it’s no longer likely to substantially lessen competition, he said.