In the ongoing federal antitrust lawsuit against Alphabet’s Google by the state of Texas, US District Judge Sean Jordan has appointed David Moran, a trial lawyer from the law firm Jackson Walker, as a “special master” to assist in resolving disputes over evidence.
The move, made on Friday, aims to streamline proceedings in the Plano, Texas case, as Moran, a seasoned trial lawyer, takes on the role of a court-appointed neutral party to facilitate the resolution of evidence-related issues.
Despite opposition from Google’s legal team, who argued against the appointment of a special master, Judge Jordan supported the suggestion, asserting that it would contribute to the efficient progression of the case. Google contended that there was no immediate need for such an appointment and that it could potentially lead to the creation and litigation of discovery issues.
Read more: Google’s US Ad Antitrust Suit Trial Date Set For March 2024
David Moran’s selection holds significance as he and Judge Jordan were former partners at the Texas-based Jackson Walker law firm. Having previously collaborated on cases at the 500-attorney firm, their professional history brings a familiarity to the dynamics of the legal proceedings.
Moran’s compensation for his role as a special master will be divided between Google and the state of Texas at his standard hourly rate, the exact details of which have not been disclosed. In similar cases, partners at Jackson Walker have been known to bill between $800 and $1,075 per hour.
While it is common for former judges to serve as special masters, Jordan’s proposal of Moran underscores their previous successful partnership and adds a unique dimension to the resolution process. As the case unfolds, the appointment of David Moran is expected to play a crucial role in addressing evidence-related disputes in the Google antitrust lawsuit.
Source: Reuters
Featured News
Electrolux Fined €44.5 Million in French Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Indian Antitrust Body Raids Alcohol Giants Amid Price Collusion Probe
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Attorneys Seek $525 Million in Fees in NCAA Settlement Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Italy’s Competition Watchdog Ends Investigation into Booking.com
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Minnesota Judge Approves $2.4 Million Hormel Settlement in Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand