RULE 26(f) DISCOVERY PLAN REPORT.Document filed by Visa Inc — United States v. Visa Inc. (Dkt. 119)

Summary

A [Proposed] Joint Amended Scheduling and Case Management Order in United States of America v. Visa Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-07214-JGK-SLC, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Document 119. It is submitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) and refers to the Court's October 2, 2025 Order staying the matter during the recent lapse in appropriations for the Department of Justice. The Parties state that they agreed to conduct discovery in two phases and have agreed on certain interim discovery deadlines but not on an overall amended case schedule. The United States proposes moving the close of fact discovery to July 17, 2026, while Visa proposes an October 16, 2026, deadline.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

1 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
VISA INC., 
Defendant. 
Case No. 1:24-cv-07214-JGK-SLC 
[PROPOSED] JOINT AMENDED SCHEDULING AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 26(f), and in accordance with the 
Court’s October 2, 2025 Order staying this matter during the recent lapse in appropriations for 
the Department of Justice, ECF No. 116, the United States of America (“Plaintiff United States” 
or “the Government”) and Visa Inc. (“Visa”) (together, the “Parties,” and individually a “Party”), 
have met and conferred on the topics outlined in this Joint Amended Scheduling and Case 
Management Order, which supersedes the Joint Amended Scheduling and Case Management 
Order of August 1, 2025, ECF No. 100. 
1.
Nature of Claims and Defenses.  The Parties previously set forth their respective
statements on the nature of the claims and defenses in this matter in the January 20, 2025 
Scheduling Order, ECF No. 53. 
2.
Initial Disclosures.  The Parties exchanged the initial disclosures required under
FRCP 26(a)(1) on January 13, 2025. 
3.
Consent to Proceed before a Magistrate Judge.  The Parties do not consent to
trial being conducted by a Magistrate Judge. 
Case 1:24-cv-07214-JGK     Document 119     Filed 12/19/25     Page 1 of 17

 
2 
 
4. 
Alternative Dispute Resolution.  Pursuant to Local Rule 83.9(d), the Parties 
have considered the use of alternative dispute resolution, but at this time do not believe that 
mediation or a judicial settlement conference would facilitate the resolution of this matter. 
5. 
Protective Order.  The Parties agreed on the terms of an Amended Stipulated 
Protective Order (“Protective Order”), which the Court entered on June 4, 2025, ECF No. 84. 
6. 
Preservation and Production of Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”).  
The Parties entered into a stipulated order governing ESI discovery (“ESI Order”), which was 
entered by the Court on March 18, 2025, ECF No. 66.  No deadline in this order shall override 
any deadline set forth in the Protective Order or ESI Order. 
7. 
Phases of Discovery.  To ensure a more trial-ready and efficient case, the Parties 
agreed to conduct discovery in this case in two phases: 
a. 
Phase I:  The first phase of discovery focused primarily on third-party discovery 
and commenced upon Visa’s filing of its motion to dismiss on February 7, 2025, 
and continued until the Court’s ruling on that motion on June 23, 2025.  In 
addition to third-party discovery, the Parties also exchanged a limited set of 
agreed upon materials, as outlined in the January 20, 2025 Scheduling Order, ECF 
No. 53. 
b. 
Phase II:  The second phase of discovery began immediately following the 
Court’s decision on Visa’s motion to dismiss.  The second phase will encompass 
any remaining third-party discovery, as well as additional Party discovery, as 
agreed upon in the below Case Schedule. 
Furthermore, the Parties recognize the efficiency of coordinating discovery, to the extent 
feasible, with the private follow-on actions, In re Visa Debit Antitrust Litigation, 1:24-cv-07435-
Case 1:24-cv-07214-JGK     Document 119     Filed 12/19/25     Page 2 of 17

 
3 
 
JGK (S.D.N.Y) (the “Private Actions”), and, to that end, are separately negotiating a proposed 
Deposition Protocol and Coordination Order that the Parties intend to file with the Court by 
January 16, 2026, or within two weeks of the Court entering an amended scheduling order, 
whichever is later. 
8. 
Case Schedule.  The Parties have come to agreement on certain interim discovery 
deadlines, but have been unable to agree on an overall amended case schedule.  The dates on 
which the Parties have reached agreement (including pre-trial deadlines previously agreed to and 
entered in the earlier CMO, ECF No. 100) are as follows1: 
Event 
Deadline 
Deadline to amend pleadings or join parties without leave of 
court 
July 24, 2025 
Interim Fact discovery deadlines2 
• Visa to produce documents previously produced in the 
Payments Litigations and in response to CID No. 
26958, issued in 2012  
January 30, 2026 
• Parties to exchange preliminary fact witness lists 
February 6, 2026 
• Visa to produce requested data (Clearing & Settlement, 
Fraud, and Authorization) for the month of September 
20253 
February 20, 2026 
• Visa to produce requested Clearing & Settlement data 
for remaining months through end of August 2025 
March 27, 2026 
• Visa to produce requested Active Cards, Fraud, and 
Authorization data for remaining months through end of 
August 2025 
May 29, 2026 
Parties to reach agreement and propose to the Court a protocol 
regarding confidentiality of materials to be used at trial, 
including non-party documents  
12 weeks before trial 
Parties exchange initial exhibit lists, and opening deposition 
designations 
12 weeks before trial 
 
1 Unless otherwise specified, days will be computed according to FRCP 6(a). 
2 Interim discovery deadlines may be extended by written consent of the Parties without 
application to the Court, provided that all fact discovery is completed by the deadline set by the 
Court for the close of fact discovery. 
3 All interim data deadlines in this Case Schedule apply to debit-related data only.  The Parties 
will continue to negotiate the scope of any credit-related data discovery. 
Case 1:24-cv-07214-JGK     Document 119     Filed 12/19/25     Page 3 of 17

 
4 
 
Each Party exchanges its objections to the other side’s exhibits 
and deposition designations and its deposition counter-
designations 
8 weeks before trial 
Parties exchange final witness lists 
8 weeks before trial 
Parties exchange final exhibit lists 
6 weeks before trial 
Motions in limine filed 
6 weeks before trial 
Each Party exchanges its objections to the other side’s 
deposition counter-designations and its counter-counter-
designations 
5 weeks before trial 
Oppositions to motions in limine filed 
4 weeks before trial 
Joint Pretrial Order Deadline 
4 weeks before trial 
Pre-trial briefs filed 
3 weeks before trial 
Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law filed   
3 weeks before trial 
Hearing regarding any disputes raised in pre-trial submissions 
by Parties and non-parties, including motions in limine  
2 weeks before trial 
Final pre-trial conference  
2 weeks before trial 
Trial begins 
Date to be determined by Court 
 
The parties do not agree on the deadline for the close of fact discovery or the remainder of the 
case schedule, and present their competing proposals below: 
United States’ Position 
The United States proposes to adjust the original, agreed-upon schedule in this matter by 
four months, moving back the deadline for the close of fact discovery from March 17 to July 17, 
2026, and adjusting other deadlines by a roughly similar period.  The government believes that a 
four-month adjustment is more than sufficient to account for both (1) the time that this case was 
stayed during the recent government shutdown (approximately six weeks), and (2) the period of 
time from late November to early January when Visa has represented to the government that its 
data is “frozen” and unretrievable (a period of approximately seven weeks).4  To make this July 
 
4 Visa originally represented that much of the data responsive to the United States’ discovery 
requests was inaccessible during this end-of-year “data freeze” period.  On November 20, 2025, 
Visa informed the government that the freeze was actually more nuanced: there were both “soft” 
freeze and “hard” freeze periods, as well as a window of time in early December when Visa’s 
data was, in fact, accessible.  Although the extent to which Visa is truly incapable of retrieving 
and producing its own data during this end-of-year period remains opaque to the government, the 
Case 1:24-cv-07214-JGK     Document 119     Filed 12/19/25     Page 4 of 17

 
5 
 
17, 2026 close-of-fact-discovery deadline possible, the United States also proposes an interim 
deadline for Visa’s production of documents that the United States requested last summer, but 
for which Visa has made no significant production. Visa has offered no compelling justification 
for its proposal that the close of fact discovery be delayed by twice as long as the United States’ 
proposal, until nearly the end of 2026—eight months later than the schedule the Parties 
originally agreed to—which would have a cascading effect on all subsequent deadlines and 
likely push trial in this matter into late 2027 or even 2028.   
First, Visa argues that the fact discovery period in this case and the related private 
litigation should be aligned, to provide for greater efficiency and convenience for the witnesses.  
The United States remains willing to coordinate with the private plaintiffs on discovery matters 
to the extent such coordination is feasible and practical, but such coordination should not delay 
this case: the United States has brought this action challenging Visa’s monopolistic conduct on 
behalf of the American people and has a sovereign interest in moving the matter forward 
expeditiously.  See 15 U.S.C. § 4 (antitrust actions instituted by the United States must proceed 
“as soon as may be, to the hearing and determination of the case”).  Visa and the private 
plaintiffs’ agreement to a more languid discovery schedule in their matter—presumably driven 
by their need to take discovery on additional issues like class certification and state law claims—
should not compel delay here.  Even if the Court determines that the only way for any 
coordination to happen is to have an identical schedule, that schedule does not have to be Visa’s 
schedule; Visa takes the point too far when it suggests that the only way to coordinate is to adopt 
Visa’s preferred timing.  
 
schedule proposed by the United States more than accounts for whatever delay can be reasonably 
attributed to the “data freeze.” 
Case 1:24-cv-07214-JGK     Document 119     Filed 12/19/25     Page 5 of 17

 
6 
 
In arguing for its October date, Visa refers to an offer that the United States floated to 
resolve scheduling and other issues in a “grand bargain” that would have included an October 
2026 close of fact discovery while obtaining commitments that Visa would produce documents 
on a schedule and would have resolved a number of other issues for both Parties. Whatever the 
propriety of Visa’s using the United States’ negotiating posture to make its substantive timing 
argument, it is taking the suggestion out of context.  Yes, the United States would have been 
willing to live with a longer schedule in exchange for other important commitments.  Visa’s 
approach of asking the Court to take the part of a grand bargain that Visa likes while ignoring the 
rest is unwarranted.  
Second, Visa asserts that a longer delay is needed because the discovery the United States 
is seeking is too broad for Visa to collect and produce on any faster timetable.  The United States 
seeks custodial productions that are necessary and proportionate. The number of custodians the 
United States is seeking is reasonable given the Complaint’s allegations that Visa has engaged in 
over fifteen years of anticompetitive conduct spanning Visa’s debit business and relationships 
with issuers, issuer processors, acquirers, merchants, and Fintechs. As explained in its 10-k, 
during the fiscal year 2024 Visa has a net revenue of $35.9 billion and employed about 31,600 
employees.  Yet, in total, the United States seeks approximately 40 current employee custodians 
along with their predecessors. Given the fifteen-year span of conduct and natural movement of 
employees, that results in about sixty-five total custodians. That number is consistent with the 
number of custodians produced by defendants in other recent Antitrust Division conduct cases.  
It is possible that the requested custodial productions could be narrowed further, but to do 
so, Visa would need to meaningfully engage with the United States. Full fact discovery has been 
open since June 2025 in this case. The government has diligently pursued discovery, including 
Case 1:24-cv-07214-JGK     Document 119     Filed 12/19/25     Page 6 of 17

 
7 
 
requesting further information regarding certain custodial roles on September 26, 2025 and 
September 30, 2025—nearly three months ago. Despite not receiving most of the requested 
information, the United States has already narrowed its requests by approximately twenty-five 
individuals. Visa has yet to explain why it cannot produce custodial files for a core group of 
relevant employees, and the United States’ narrowed requests are entirely appropriate.  
The United States is willing to work with Visa to see if additional tailoring is possible.  
The United States sees no reason to delay setting a schedule even as these good faith negotiations 
continue, and, indeed, believes that clarity on the schedule may help facilitate resolution on this 
and other issues.  Should the deadlines prove unworkable for any reason, a Party may always 
seek leave of the Court to adjust the schedule. 
Finally, the United States also proposes to add an interim deadline during the fact 
discovery period requiring Visa to substantially complete its document production by April 1, 
2026, to ensure that discovery is received sufficiently ahead of the close of fact discovery for the 
Parties to review and make use of it in depositions, and to reduce the likelihood that any further 
extension will be necessary.  This deadline is reasonable—giving Visa several additional months 
to produce the documents that the United States requested soon after discovery opened last 
summer—and necessary, given that Visa has made minimal document productions to date and 
has resisted setting firm deadlines that are sufficiently in advance of the close of fact discovery.  
A deadline is also necessary because Visa’s current pace of negotiating on custodial document 
production will not provide the United States with sufficient documents in a timely manner for a 
fair opportunity for depositions of relevant Visa employees. 
For these reasons, the United States asks this Court to order the following schedule: 
 
Case 1:24-cv-07214-JGK     Document 119     Filed 12/19/25     Page 7 of 17

 
8 
 
Event 
Deadline 
Interim Fact discovery deadlines: 
• Visa to substantially complete production of requested 
documents  
April 1, 2026 
• Parties to exchange updated preliminary fact witness 
lists 
May 20, 2026 
Close of fact discovery 
July 17, 2026 
Plaintiff United States to identify expert witnesses and topics for 
each expert 
July 17, 2026 
Visa to identify expert witnesses and topics for each expert 
August 18, 2026 
Plaintiff United States to serve initial expert report(s) 
September 1, 2026 
Plaintiff United States to identify reply experts and topics for 
each expert 
September 15, 2026 
Visa to serve rebuttal expert report(s) 
October 19, 2026 
Plaintiff United States to serve reply expert report(s) 
November 19, 2026 
Close of expert discovery 
December 9, 2026 
Motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions filed 
January 8, 2027 
Oppositions to motions for summary judgment and Daubert 
motions filed 
February 5, 2027 
Replies concerning motions for summary judgment or Daubert 
motions filed 
February 19, 2027 
 
Visa’s Position 
Over the past weeks, the parties have negotiated in good faith and have made notable 
progress in reaching consensus on the case schedule that should apply across the cases.  There, 
however, remains one fundamental dispute concerning when fact discovery should end, which 
has a cascading impact on the other dates in the proposed schedule.  To allow for coordination 
across the cases, Visa respectfully requests that the Court order the same fact discovery deadline 
in the government case and Private Actions, and proposes that an October 16, 2026, deadline 
appropriately balances the interests of the parties in both cases.   
During negotiations, Private Plaintiffs took the position that fact discovery in both cases 
should close on November 13, 2026. Given that fact discovery has only recently started in the 
Private Actions, and the Government is seeking exceedingly broad discovery in its case, Visa 
Case 1:24-cv-07214-JGK     Document 119     Filed 12/19/25     Page 8 of 17

 
9 
 
believes that the November deadline would be appropriate. However, in an effort to find a 
compromise, Visa urged Private Plaintiffs to propose a sooner date. Based on those discussions, 
Private Plaintiffs indicated they would agree to the October 16, 2026, deadline proposed below, 
on the condition that it also apply in the Government case. The Court should adopt that 
compromise to ensure that coordination across the cases is possible. 
Courts regularly order aligned discovery in coordinated cases to avoid needless 
duplication and the burden of multiple depositions of the same witnesses.  See, e.g., In re Daily 
Harvest, Inc. Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 22CV5987(DLC), 2023 WL 3144171, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 
28, 2023) (“[T]he parties are to work together to coordinate discovery to the maximum extent 
feasible in order to avoid duplication of discovery and to promote the efficient and speedy 
resolution of the [litigation] . . . .”); Kurtz v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 21 CIV. 6188 (PAE), 2021 
WL 4777973, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2021) (recognizing, where one party’s counsel was the 
same across cases, that coordinated discovery achieves “maximum efficiency” and “avoid[s] 
duplication,” including by assuring that only “single depositions” would be necessary); Texas v. 
Penguin Grp. (USA) Inc., No. 11-MD-2293, 2013 WL 1759567, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2013) 
(“The Court [] set a schedule for coordinated discovery in the DOJ, State, and Class Actions,” 
including the same deadline for “all fact . . . discovery in all actions.”). 
The Government has recognized the efficiency of coordinating discovery (see supra para. 
7) and has agreed in principle that depositions should be coordinated. But the Government’s 
proposed schedule makes that coordination a practical impossibility because it would not allow 
Private Plaintiffs sufficient time to catch up in time to conduct joint depositions. This would 
create costly inefficiencies and avoidable burden for Visa, and potentially for the Court. The 
Government argues that this problem could be solved by imposing a July 17, 2026, deadline 
Case 1:24-cv-07214-JGK     Document 119     Filed 12/19/25     Page 9 of 17

 
10 
 
across both cases. But requiring Private Plaintiffs to conduct discovery on such an expedited 
timeline in a case such as this—where 700 hours of depositions have been permitted in the 
Government case and an additional 125 hours of depositions have been permitted in the Private 
Cases—is not feasible.  
The Government would not be similarly prejudiced by an October 16, 2026, deadline. 
Indeed, as recently as yesterday, the Government indicated that it could agree to the proposed 
October 16, 2026 deadline, but only if Visa were to concede to their overbroad discovery 
demands—including agreeing to search and produce documents from sixty-seven custodians—
before the parties have had a detailed discussion, stalled by the government shutdown, about the 
substance of those demands or the appropriateness of those custodians.  Visa has consistently 
offered to negotiate the proper scope of discovery in good faith, but the Government demanded 
wholesale acceptance of their proposal and withdrew its offer for an October fact discovery 
deadline.  But the Government’s willingness to agree to that date yesterday undermines any 
claim of prejudice they might now claim.   
Finally, the Government devotes space to attempting to justify the breadth of document 
and data discovery that it is seeking in this case. While Visa does not think this CMO is the 
appropriate forum to address the merits of ongoing discovery negotiations between the Parties, 
the July date that the Government is demanding makes it almost certain that Visa will not be able 
to agree to the broad scope of discovery the Government wants, increasing the likelihood that 
this Court will need to resolve a further discovery dispute.5   
 
5 Despite the Government’s protestations, Visa has already made substantial productions to the 
Government, including in response to “go-get” requests, and it is the custodial documents that 
Parties continue to negotiate. Those negotiations are necessary to resolving the scope of custodial 
collections before any such files can be reviewed and prepared for production.  Furthermore, 
Visa has consistently explained that its data freeze has varying levels of restrictions during the 
Case 1:24-cv-07214-JGK     Document 119     Filed 12/19/25     Page 10 of 17

 
11 
 
Visa respectfully requests that the Court enter the below schedule. 
Event 
Deadline 
Deadline to amend pleadings or join parties without leave of 
court 
July 24, 2025 
Interim Fact discovery deadlines6 
• Visa to substantially complete production of requested 
documents 
June 30, 2026 
• Parties to exchange updated preliminary fact witness 
lists 
August 19, 2026 
Close of fact discovery 
October 16, 2026 
Plaintiff United States to identify expert witnesses and topics for 
each expert 
October 16, 2026 
Visa to identify expert witnesses and topics for each expert 
November 17, 2026 
Plaintiff United States to serve initial expert report(s) 
December 8, 2026 
Plaintiff United States to identify reply experts and topics for 
each expert 
December 22, 2026 
Visa to serve rebuttal expert report(s) 
January 25, 2027 
Plaintiff United States to serve reply expert report(s) 
February 25, 2027 
Close of expert discovery 
April 8, 2027 
Motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions filed 
May 6, 2027 
Oppositions to motions for summary judgment and Daubert 
motions filed 
June 3, 2027 
Replies concerning motions for summary judgment or Daubert 
motions filed 
June 17, 2027 
 
9. 
Data Productions.   As reported in the Parties’ Joint Status Reports of August 13, 
2025 (ECF No. 105), September 5, 2025 (ECF No. 112), and September 26, 2025 (ECF No. 
114), the Parties have been negotiating the specific data to be produced in this case as part of 
 
busy holiday season to protect the integrity of business operations and has worked in good faith 
with the Government to progress data collections to the extent feasible during this period. 
6 Interim discovery deadlines may be extended by written consent of the Parties without 
application to the Court, provided that all fact discovery is completed by October 16, 2026. 
Case 1:24-cv-07214-JGK     Document 119     Filed 12/19/25     Page 11 of 17

 
12 
 
discovery.  The Parties will continue to negotiate the scope of the remaining data to be produced 
and will update the Court by January 16, 2026, as to the status of those conversations.   
10. 
Witness Lists and Deposition Designations.   
a. Preliminary Fact Witness List. Each Party shall provide a preliminary 
fact witness list on or before the date specified in the case schedule. No 
more than a total of 40 fact witnesses whom the Party intends to present 
live at trial may be included on the preliminary witness list.  With respect 
to non-parties for which depositions are not complete, such non-parties 
can be identified in a corporate capacity on the preliminary fact witness 
list, but only if at the time the preliminary list is due the Party naming the 
non-party witness in good faith lacks knowledge of the individual identity 
of the witness. 
b. Updated Preliminary Fact Witness List.  Each Party shall provide an 
updated preliminary fact witness list on or before the date specified in the 
case schedule.  No more than a total of 40 fact witnesses may be included 
on the updated preliminary fact witness list.  No more than 10 of these 
witnesses may be substitutions or additions to those listed on the 
preliminary fact witness list (excluding witnesses previously identified 
only in a corporate capacity).  The witnesses on the updated preliminary 
fact witness list must be individually identified by name and not in a 
corporate capacity.  To the extent, however, depositions of a non-party 
noticed pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) are scheduled after the date specified for 
exchange of the updated preliminary fact witness list, a Party may 
Case 1:24-cv-07214-JGK     Document 119     Filed 12/19/25     Page 12 of 17

 
13 
 
continue to identify any witness associated with that corporate entity in a 
corporate capacity, but will update the preliminary fact witness list to 
identify that witness by name within 7 days after any such deposition. 
c. Final Witness Lists. Each Party shall provide a final witness list 8 weeks 
before trial, which shall be limited to those witnesses previously included 
on the Party’s updated preliminary witness list, absent good cause or 
agreement of the Parties, and to no more than 30 persons, excluding 
experts.  The Parties agree that it shall constitute good cause to modify the 
final witness list to replace or remove a witness if that witness departs 
from the company that employed the witness at the time of their 
deposition.   If, based on agreement or good cause, any new fact witnesses 
are added to a final trial witness list who were not on any Party’s updated 
preliminary fact witness list and were not previously subject to custodial 
discovery or deposed, the Parties agree to negotiate in good faith as to 
whether additional document discovery related to those witnesses or 
depositions of those witnesses may be appropriate.  
d. Deposition Designations. Witnesses whose testimony will be offered into 
evidence at trial through designated portions of their deposition testimony 
shall be identified on final trial witness lists, however those witnesses do 
not count against the limits on the numbers of persons who may be 
identified on those lists. 
e. General Principles for Witness Lists. In preparing preliminary fact 
witness lists and final witness lists, the Parties must make good-faith 
Case 1:24-cv-07214-JGK     Document 119     Filed 12/19/25     Page 13 of 17

 
14 
 
attempts based on information reasonably available to them at that time to 
identify the witnesses whom they expect that they will present as live 
witnesses at trial (other than solely for impeachment). The witness lists 
must include contact information for known counsel or, if no counsel is 
known, the name, employer, address, and telephone number of each 
witness (if known). No Party may call a person to testify as a live witness 
at trial (other than solely for impeachment) unless (a) that person was 
identified on that Party’s final trial witness list; (b) all Parties agree that 
that Party may call that person to testify; or (c) ordered by the Court after 
that Party demonstrates good cause for allowing it to call that person to 
testify, despite that Party’s failure to identify that person sooner.  
11. 
Timely Service of Fact Discovery and Supplemental Discovery.  All discovery, 
including discovery served on non-parties, must be served in time to permit completion of 
responses by the close of fact discovery. 
12. 
Interrogatories.  Pursuant to the Court’s order on January 20, 2025, ECF No. 53, 
each Party is limited to 25 interrogatories. 
13. 
Requests for Admission.  Each Party is limited to 35 requests for admission in 
total.  Each request may include subparts that relate directly to the subject matter of the request 
(e.g., date, time and author of a document or series of emails; multiple dates of an employee’s 
positions in a company).  Each Party reserves the right to ask the Court for leave to serve 
additional requests for admission. 
14. 
Depositions.  As previously agreed upon by the Parties and ordered by the Court, 
unless the Parties otherwise agree or the Court grants leave on Party’s motion, each Party may 
Case 1:24-cv-07214-JGK     Document 119     Filed 12/19/25     Page 14 of 17

 
15 
 
serve one notice pursuant to FRCP 30(b)(6) on the opposing Party. The 30(b)(6) notice may call 
for testimony on multiple subjects and the responding Party may designate one or more different 
witnesses as to each subject matter.  As noted above, and as a consequence of developments in 
the related Private Actions during the period that this case was stayed, the Parties are separately 
negotiating a proposed Deposition Protocol and Coordination Order that the Parties intend to file 
with the Court by January 16, 2026, or within two weeks of the Court entering an amended 
scheduling order, whichever is later.  
15. 
Discovery Dispute Resolution.  In the event of a dispute between the Parties 
and/or a non-party regarding any discovery issue, the Parties (and the non-party when applicable) 
shall meet and confer in an attempt to resolve the dispute. In the event of a dispute during a 
deposition, the Parties and/or non-parties shall memorialize the dispute on the record and present 
the dispute to the Court by motion within 7 business days of the close of the deposition. If the 
Court orders a Party or non-party to provide additional testimony (i.e., rejects the opposition of 
the Party or non-party to answering a particular question), the Party or non-party shall provide 
the witness for deposition on the testimony in question within 10 business days of the ruling. 
16. 
Demonstrative Exhibits.  Demonstrative exhibits do not need to be included on 
the trial exhibit lists when those lists are exchanged.   
17. 
Word Limits on Pre-trial Briefs. The Parties agree that word-count limits are 
appropriate for both the Pre-Trial Briefs and the Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of 
Law, and agree to suggest specific word-count limits to the Court after the close of discovery and 
after any summary judgment motions have been resolved. 
18. 
Nationwide Service of Trial Subpoenas. To assist the Parties in planning 
discovery, and in view of the geographic dispersion of potential witnesses in this action outside 
Case 1:24-cv-07214-JGK     Document 119     Filed 12/19/25     Page 15 of 17

16 
this District, the Parties are permitted, under 15 U.S.C. § 23, to issue nationwide discovery and 
trial subpoenas from this Court. The availability of nationwide service of process, however, does 
not make a witness who is otherwise “unavailable” for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil 
Procedure 32 and Federal Rule of Evidence 804 available under those rules or otherwise affect 
the admissibility at trial of a deposition of a witness. 
19.
Modification of Scheduling and Case Management Order.  Any Party may
seek modification of this Order for good cause. 
* * *
The Parties appreciate the Court’s consideration of this proposed order. 
DATED: December 19, 2025 
By:      /s/ Craig Conrath 
Craig Conrath 
Christopher Jackson 
Bennett J. Matelson 
Erin Murdock-Park 
Michele Trichler 
United States Department of Justice 
Antitrust Division 
450 Fifth Street, N.W., Suite 4000 
Telephone: (202) 894-4266 
Facsimile: (202) 514-7308 
Craig.Conrath@usdoj.gov  
Christopher.Jackson5@usdoj.gov 
Bennett.Matelson@usdoj.gov 
Erin.Murdock-Park@usdoj.gov 
Michele.Trichler@usdoj.gov 
Counsel for Plaintiff, the United States 
Respectfully submitted, 
By:      /s/ Jeremy Barber 
Beth Wilkinson (SBN NY 2181592) 
Brian Stekloff (admitted pro hac vice) 
Kieran Gostin (SBN NY 4847653) 
Roxana Guidero (admitted pro hac vice) 
WILKINSON STEKLOFF LLP 
2001 M Street NW, 10th Floor 
Washington, DC 20036 
Telephone: (202) 847-4000 
Facsimile: (202) 847-4005 
bwilkinson@wilkinsonstekloff.com 
bstekloff@wilkinsonstekloff.com 
kgostin@wilkinsonstekloff.com 
rguidero@wilkinsonstekloff.com 
Jeremy Barber (SBN NY 5344304) 
Anthony P. Ferrara (SBN NY 5656905) 
WILKINSON STEKLOFF LLP 
130 W 42nd Street, Floor 24 
New York, NY 10036 
Telephone: (212) 294-8910 
Case 1:24-cv-07214-JGK     Document 119     Filed 12/19/25     Page 16 of 17

17 
Facsimile: (202) 847-4005 
jbarber@wilkinsonstekloff.com 
aferrara@wilkinsonstekloff.com 
Anne P. Davis (admitted pro hac vice)  
Jonathan Ian Gleklen (admitted pro hac 
vice)  
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE 
SCHOLER LLP  
601 Massachusetts Avenue NW  
Washington, D.C. 20001 
Telephone: (202) 942-6197 
Facsimile: (202) 942-5999 
anne.davis@arnoldporter.com 
jonathan.gleklen@arnoldporter.com 
Counsel for Defendant Visa, Inc. 
Case 1:24-cv-07214-JGK     Document 119     Filed 12/19/25     Page 17 of 17

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.nysd.628802.119.0.pdf

Size

325,106 bytes

SHA-256

67b60668ac9ddf20fc94a0a96034050c33061dc7208de9abdbb6f9de5f164966

Our copy

gov.uscourts.nysd.628802.119.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)