CN
29 Mar 2025

WASHINGTON (CN) - The Justice Department and Google asked a federal judge Friday to maintain limited public access to court proceedings during a looming remedy trial regarding Google's monopoly over internet search.

In a joint proposal, the parties asked U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta to allow for certain public access to transcripts of closed proceedings, starting with a 15-day evidentiary hearing scheduled for April 21 through May 9. 

"The court's previous orders governing confidentiality - which set reasonable timeframes and make the confidentiality process manageable for the parties, non-parties, and the court while preserving the interest in public access - should similarly govern remedies in this bifurcated proceeding," Google and the Justice Department say in their proposed order.

The proposed order would set up a 72-hour period in which the parties - and potentially any third parties such as Apple - can review the transcripts from any closed sessions during the evidentiary hearing and propose redactions for Mehta to review. 

Following that review, the Barack Obama appointee would release any sections of the testimony that he determines do not require redactions. 

The proposal asks Mehta to deny a request by the New York Times for expedited public access to such transcripts, within 24 hours of the end of the closed sessions.

"Based on experience from the liability trial, the parties and non-parties were able to resolve a significant number of disputes after material was designated confidential but before the material was used in court. This approach, however, takes some additional time," the parties write in their proposal.

The parties assert that such a timeframe is unreasonable, considering they usually do not receive transcripts for several hours, or potentially the next business day.

They do, however, agree that Mehta should give the public and the press an opportunity to challenge any courtroom closure before the closure happens. 

The move sets up a slightly more accessible beginning to the second phase of the landmark monopoly trial, after the liability phase was marred by sealed testimony, redacted documents and closed hearings, much to the ire of the public and the press, creating a so-called "veil of secrecy" over the trial.

Throughout the trial, Google fought to keep supposed trade secrets from view, such as the amount of money Google paid Apple to be the built-in default search engine for users on the Safari internet browser. 

Google's final witness, Chicago School economist Kevin Murphy, let slip that Google pays Apple 36% of its ad revenue. 

Besides Murphy's slip-up, Google's lead attorney John Schmidtlein, of the firm Williams & Connolly, made frequent objections during Justice Department questioning to keep supposed trade secrets from public view. 

During the first few weeks of the trial, Mehta had regularly allowed many exhibits to remain redacted, on occasion closing the courtroom rather than presenting them publicly. But as the trial wore on - and as a coalition of media organizations motioned for access - Mehta began to reject such requests. 

The evidentiary hearing will center on the parties proposed remedies to address Google's monopoly over internet search and include several witnesses and reams of documents. 

In a revised proposed final judgment earlier this month, the Justice Department urged Mehta to order Google divest its Chrome browser and end default search engine deals to allow other search engines to compete in the market. 

The proposal, however, reversed course on a previous request that Mehta also force Google divest its Artificial Intelligence investments - the first proposal, under the Biden administration, expressed concern that Google could use its AI products to effectively circumvent any court-ordered remedy. 

The Justice Department cited evidence brought up during the remedy discovery phase that such divestment "could cause unintended consequences" in the fast-moving AI space.

"Plaintiffs are no longer advocating for this specific remedy; however, they continue to be concerned about Google's potential to use it sizable capital to exercise influence in AI companies," the Justice Department wrote. "As a result, plaintiffs included an advance notification provision to permit a review of proposed transactions."

The revised proposal also suggests the divestiture of Google's Android products should be contingent on whether other proposals related to Google's ad market are effective in lifting the company's control over the Android ecosystem. 

Google, on the other hand, has asked Mehta to craft a narrow remedy, allowing it to keep its Chrome browser while prohibiting agreements that condition certain products, like the Google Play store or Chrome with making Google the default search engine. 

The remedy phase trial is set to begin later in May, and is expected to run through ought the remainder of 2025. The liability phase lasted 40 days between October and November 2023, with closing arguments in May 2024. 

Source: Courthouse News Service