In Google Antitrust Discovery, a Small Victory for In-House Counsel
Google had sought to limit what discovery documents could be seen by outside experts in investigations brought by state attorneys general before the company reached an agreement last week on narrower limitations.
February 24, 2020 at 06:09 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
A coalition of state attorneys general investigating Google over its antitrust practices has won a small victory for in-house counsel who someday may want to use their expertise as outside consultants.
Google had sought to limit what discovery documents could be seen by outside consultants hired by the states. In a petition filed last fall in a Travis County, Texas, court, Google named three specific consultants, and singled out Eugene Burrus, a former assistant general counsel at Microsoft Corp. in Seattle.
Google argued that absent the limitations, "Burrus likely will attempt to use his experience on this investigation, including his access to confidential Google information, to market himself to prospective clients with interests adverse to Google."
The internet search giant asked the court to set a cooling-off period for the outside consultants to keep them from working with other Google competitors and from using what they learned during this investigation to advise other clients.
Burrus on Monday did not immediately return messages seeking comment. The other two consultants are Roger Alford, a former assistant attorney general in the U.S. Justice Department's antitrust division, and Cristina Caffarra, an antitrust and European competition expert at consultancy Charles River Associates.
The bipartisan group of state attorneys general from 49 states and territories are investigating Google's practices in coordination with federal authorities. The state's action is led by Ken Paxton, attorney general of Texas.
Last Friday Paxton's lawyers and Google reached agreement on narrower limitations on the consultants. To get access to materials provided by Google, the consultants now will have to sign an agreement saying they will not disclose confidential information or trade secrets.
The deal placed no limits on their future work.
In a statement, Paxton said, "Experts retained by the state will not be burdened with the unreasonable prohibitions sought by Google. They will be able to lend their important expertise to the state without fear of being frozen out of other employment within their field."
Burrus is no stranger to Google. In his bio he claimed to have developed the antitrust case that led to a $2.7 billion European Union fine against Google in 2017. At that time, Burrus was working for Microsoft, which was cooperating with the EU investigation against Google.
Burrus, according to LinkedIn, worked as an in-house attorney at Microsoft for 15 years, from 2002 to 2017. Before that, he was an antitrust counsel for American Airlines Inc. for five years.
After leaving Microsoft, he worked eight months for Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro in Seattle and then became a self-employed lawyer and consultant. He also lists himself currently as an external senior adviser to McKinsey & Co.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCollectible Maker Funko Wins Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action
How Tony West Used Transparency to Reform Uber's Toxic Culture
What Paul Grewal Has Learned About Advocacy as Coinbase's Top Lawyer
7 minute readShowered With Stock, Tech GCs Incentivized to 'Knock It Out of the Park'
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250