JOINT AMENDED SCHEDULING AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER:… — United States v. Visa Inc. (Dkt. 123)

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 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Doc. 123, filed January 22, 2026. It states that it follows the Court's October 2, 2025 Order staying the matter during the recent lapse in appropriations for the Department of Justice, and that it supersedes the Joint Amended Scheduling and Case Management Order of August 1, 2025. The Case Schedule section states that the Parties have come to agreement on certain interim discovery deadlines but have been unable to agree on an overall amended case schedule. The signature block shows /s/ Jeremy Barber.

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

Case 4:24-e/-07214-JGK  BeeurnentiS Filed 62/29/26 Page 4 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
¥ Case No. 1:24-cv-07214-JGK-SLC
VISA INC.,
Defendant.

[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-ey-67214-JGK  Beeumenti2S Filed 62/29/25 Page 2 ef 47

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 Ato Oi2I4e-JOK Boeumeni ite Ried bares Pege3eft7

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 follows':

Deadline to amend pleadings or join parties without leave of
court
Interim Fact discovery deadlines?
e Visa to produce documents previously produced in the
Payments Litigations and in response to CID No.
26958, issued in 2012
e Parties to exchange preliminary fact witness lists February 6, 2026
e Visa to produce requested data (Clearing & Settlement,
Fraud, and Authorization) for the month of September | February 20, 2026
20253
e Visa to produce requested Clearing & Settlement data
for remaining months through end of August 2025
e Visa to produce requested Active Cards, Fraud, and
Authorization data for remaining months through end of | May 29, 2026
August 2025
Parties to reach agreement and propose to the Court a protocol
regarding confidentiality of materials to be used at trial, 12 weeks before trial
including non-party documents
Parties exchange initial exhibit lists, and opening deposition
designations

July 24, 2025

January 30, 2026

March 27, 2026

12 weeks before trial

' Unless otherwise specified, days will be computed according to FRCP 6(a).

* 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.

> 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.

3
Case 1:24-ewO721eJI@K Deewmenti1ts Riedie Rage 4efl7

Each Party exchanges its objections to the other side’s exhibits

and deposition designations and its deposition counter- 8 weeks before trial
designations

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- 5 weeks before trial
designations

Oppositions to motions in limine filed 4 weeks before trial
Joint Pretrial Order Deadline 4 weeks before tral
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 _| 2 weeks before trial
by Parties and non-parties, including motions in limine

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).* 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

4
Case 1:24-ew-07214-JIGK Document 12S Filed 04/29/26 Page 5 of 17

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-ewO7214-JIGK Becwment12S ‘riled babe25 Page € of17

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~-O7214JIGK Dowumenti12?S Ried 1/225 Paege7 of 17

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:
€ase 1:24-cy-87214-Jek  Becument4d3 Filed 64/39/28 Rage 8 of 47

In Fact discovery deadlines: } ~ 7
° a to substantially complete production of requested | April 1, 2026
doc ts

© Parties to exc ge updated preliminary fact witness

. May 20, 2026

lists
Close of fact discovery ~ July 17, 2026
Plaintiff United States to identify expert witnesses and topics for uly 17, 2026

each expert ‘S oe fk

Visa to identify expert witnesses and topic3for 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 fopics for September 15, 2026
each expert NN

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 February 19,2 om \.
motions filed

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-ev-O7214-JIGK  Decument12S Filed Da/b925 Page 9 of 17

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 Docurenti?S Filed 02/29/25 Page 10 of 17

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.°

> 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

10
Case LAr O72 eK Peeumentts ried bees Page 14 of 47

Visa respectfully requests that the Court enter the below schedule.

Deadline to amend pleadings or join parties without leave o July 24, 2025

court

Interim Fact discovery deadlines®

e Visa to substantially complete production of requested | June 30, 2026
documents
° Parties to exchange updated preliminary fact witness ' 19-2026 Pia (3, 20D0G
lists de C

Close of fact discovery October 16, 2026 e ([
Plaintiff United States to identify expert witnesses and topics for October 16, 2026

each expert

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 December 22, 2026

each expert

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 June 3, 2027

motions filed

Replies concerning motions for summary judgment or Daubert June 17, 2027

motions filed

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.

° 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.

11
Case 1:24-cvO7214-JIGK Dooumenti12S Ried T2/29/25 Page 120f17

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

12
Case 124-072 ek Resumen tte Filed b4/29/25 Page 13 ef 47

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

13
Case 1:24-ev-67244-JEk  Beeurment4tS Filed 62/29/26 Page 44 of 47

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

14
Case 1:24-ev-O7214-JIGK Deewment1ts Filed Dabo2s Page 13 of 17

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

15
Case Pte OA IGK Desunentits Riki le Page 16 ef l7

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.

OK

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@usdo}].gov
Erin.Murdock-Park(@usdoj.gov
Michele. Trichler@usdoj.gov

Counsel for Plaintiff, the United States

16

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-ev-O7214-JGK  Decurentibs Filed 04/29/25 Page 17 of 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.

17

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.nysd.628802.123.0.pdf

Size

2,778,254 bytes

SHA-256

be5da0c184c97600936e92620e4607864cbe4ae970a3e9988cdaecdf52dd1051

Our copy

gov.uscourts.nysd.628802.123.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)