JOINT LETTER addressed to Judge John G. Koeltl from Margaret A.… — United States v. Visa Inc. (Dkt. 132)

Summary

A joint letter dated March 6, 2026, Doc. 132 in United States of America v. Visa Inc., No. 1:24-cv-07214-JGK, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed with In re: Visa Debit Card Antitrust Litig., No. 1:24-cv-7435 (JGK). All parties submit a proposed deposition protocol but state that they could not agree on paragraphs 21 and 22, which relate to Visa's depositions of named plaintiffs in the private cases. Private Plaintiffs ask the Court to confirm that those depositions count toward Visa's agreed-upon limit of 350 hours, or alternatively to order their compromise proposal. Visa asks the Court to adopt its own proposal, and the United States states a position on non-counting time for deposing merchant plaintiffs.

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 
US 256161703 
March 6, 2026 
 
VIA ECF  
Honorable John G. Koeltl 
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York   
Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse 
500 Pearl Street 
New York, NY 10007 
 
Re: 
United States of America v. Visa Inc., No. 1:24-cv-7214 (JGK) (DOJ Action) 
In re: Visa Debit Card Antitrust Litig., No. 1:24-cv-7435 (JGK) (Private Actions) 
 
Dear Judge Koeltl:  
All parties in the two above-captioned related cases write jointly to submit a proposed 
deposition protocol for these cases. The parties could not agree on paragraphs 21 and 22 of the 
attached document, which relate to Visa’s depositions of named plaintiffs in the private cases. The 
parties’ respective proposed language is included as alternatives in the attached document, and 
their statements supporting their respective proposals follow. 
Private Plaintiffs ask the Court to confirm that under the current case management order 
(“CMO”), ECF 184, Visa’s depositions of named plaintiffs count toward its agreed-upon limit of 
350 hours. In the alternative, they ask the Court to order their compromise proposal.  
 
Visa’s position that it may spend over a thousand hours deposing named plaintiffs without 
that time counting toward its 350-hour limit—when Private Plaintiffs have only 125 hours, 
collectively, to depose Visa and third parties, ECF 184 ¶ 12—defies the Court’s orders and basic 
fairness. Neither the previous (ECF 98) nor the current CMO supports Visa’s position. See ECF 
98 ¶ 11; ECF 184 ¶ 12. Indeed, the original CMO specified which depositions do not count toward 
the parties’ time limits—ECF 98 ¶ 13—but Visa’s depositions of named plaintiffs are notably and 
correctly absent. The current CMO also does not exclude these depositions from Visa’s hours cap. 
These orders establish that Visa’s depositions of named plaintiffs count toward its overall 
deposition hours limit. See, e.g., Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 250 F.R.D. 452, 456 
(N.D. Cal. 2008) (“the plain meaning of the case management order” controls).  
 
Visa now complains of a time crunch because the amended complaints added named 
plaintiffs. To address Visa’s concerns and attempt to avoid motion practice, Private Plaintiffs 
advanced numerous compromise proposals, with their final proposal granting Visa up to 343 non-
counting deposition hours (up to 175 hours for cardholder depositions and 168 hours for merchant 
depositions), almost three times Private Plaintiffs’ collective hours, even though the case turns on 
Visa’s misconduct and Private Plaintiffs must prove liability and certify their classes.1 Visa asks 
 
1 If Visa or the Government receive non-counting deposition time, Cardholders respectfully 
request 0.5 hours of deposition time for Merchant witnesses. The minimal request ensures 
Cardholders can address issues specific to their claims without reducing Private Plaintiffs’ already 
limited hours. Merchants oppose this request, which would asymmetrically expand the time 
Cardholders have to explore an issue on which Private Plaintiffs’ interests diverge. 
Case 1:24-cv-07214-JGK     Document 132     Filed 03/06/26     Page 1 of 5

2 
US 256161703 
the Court for 1,134 hours of “free” deposition time—28 non-counting deposition hours with each 
named merchant plaintiff (three 7-hour 30(b)(1) depositions and one 7-hour 30(b)(6) deposition) 
and one non-counting 7-hour 30(b)(1) deposition with each named cardholder plaintiff. That would 
double the Government and Private Plaintiffs’ combined deposition time and give Visa over ten 
times more deposition time than Private Plaintiffs. Visa’s insistence that Private Plaintiffs agreed 
to this disparity strains credulity. Visa’s position—which would free it to use all 350 hours of its 
“counting” hours on third parties while forcing the DOJ to divide its 350 hours between Visa and 
third parties—also departs from the practice in a comparable case with private and government 
plaintiffs, in which the court gave defendant American Express 550 deposition hours and all 
plaintiffs 456 hours, a ratio far more balanced than Visa demands here. See United States v. Am. 
Exp. Co., No. 1:10-cv-4496, ECF 220-1 (Proposed Order) at 2 (E.D.N.Y. June 8, 2012); id., Minute 
Entry (E.D.N.Y. June 14, 2012) (ordering entry of Order). 
 
The Court should reject Visa’s gambit and confirm that time spent deposing named 
plaintiffs counts. Failing that, the Court should order Plaintiffs’ compromise proposal, which adds 
to Visa’s deposition hours nearly three times the hours Private Plaintiffs have for the entire case.   
The United States takes no position on how many non-counting hours, if any, Visa should 
have to depose named private plaintiffs but notes that Visa’s request for over 1,000 hours of non-
counting time is neither reasonable nor proportionate to its needs. Should the Court allocate to Visa 
any non-counting hours, all Parties agree that the United States should have some non-counting 
time, too, and disagree only on the amount of time for each named merchant plaintiff deposition 
(all agree on the Government’s non-counting time for deposing cardholder plaintiffs). The United 
States and Private Plaintiffs propose one hour, while Visa proposes 30 minutes. These cases are 
not consolidated, and, in its original deposition hours request, the United States did not 
contemplate permitting depositions from the Private Actions to be used in the DOJ Action, as the 
Parties now agree to allow in the proposed Deposition Protocol (see ¶ 16). Given this change, the 
United States has vital, independent interests to protect; 30 minutes of non-counting time for 
merchant depositions is insufficient and inequitable if Visa gets a full, free day with each. Visa is 
incorrect that the Government’s interests are wholly aligned with those of either private plaintiff, 
and that any time the Government spends deposing a named plaintiff (in a case to which the United 
States is not a party) is somehow analogous to the time Visa has reserved for its own employees. 
One hour is a modest and reasonable adjustment to Visa’s position, from which Visa would suffer 
no prejudice. Should the Court adopt Visa’s proposal, the United States requests that the Court 
grant it one hour of non-counting time for each named merchant plaintiff deposition. 
Visa’s Statement.  Private Plaintiffs seek to set aside the Court’s prior orders, agreed to 
by the parties, regarding deposition time.  The Court should reject this effort and adopt Visa’s 
proposal, which maintains the deposition time allotments the parties previously negotiated and the 
Court approved.  Specifically, in the DOJ Action, each side received 350 hours for fact depositions 
(1:24-cv-07124, ECF No. 48 ¶ 9); and in the Private Actions, Private Plaintiffs received an 
additional 125 hours and Visa was limited to three Rule 30(b)(1) depositions and one Rule 30(b)(6) 
deposition of each Merchant Plaintiff.  (1:24-cv-07435, ECF No. 98 ¶ 11).  Nothing in the prior 
CMOs required Visa to sacrifice its right to adequately depose Private Plaintiffs in exchange for 
its full allotment of deposition time in the DOJ Action.  (1:24-cv-07435, ECF No. 98 ¶ 11).  Visa 
would never have agreed to such a penalty and Plaintiffs’ effort to read that into Paragraph 13 of 
the CMO in the Private Actions should be summarily rejected. 
Case 1:24-cv-07214-JGK     Document 132     Filed 03/06/26     Page 2 of 5

3 
US 256161703 
The only relevant recent change is the addition of numerous putative class representatives 
in the Private Actions, increasing the number from 11 to 78 (28 merchants, 50 cardholders).  It 
was Private Plaintiffs’ choice to increase the number of plaintiffs seven-fold, yet they now want 
Visa to bear its consequences.  Specifically, they ask this Court to require Visa to use its 350-hour 
allotment from the DOJ Action to depose any of the 78 Private Plaintiffs.  Or, as an alternative, 
they suggest Visa should have to use its time from the DOJ Action if it spends more than, on 
average, 6 hours deposing each Merchant Plaintiff or 3.5 hours deposing each Cardholder Plaintiff.   
The Court should reject both alternatives, as both would severely prejudice Visa by forcing 
it to either forego full depositions of Private Plaintiffs or forego its rights to develop its defense in 
the DOJ Action.  This is inappropriate for several reasons. 
First, the 78 putative class representatives seek to represent multiple classes seeking 
billions of dollars in damages and transformative injunctive relief.  Yet Private Plaintiffs’ request 
does not even permit Visa to use the default seven-hour time limit allowed under the Federal Rules 
to depose them.  Sitting for reasonable deposition testimony is the minimum that should be 
expected from any plaintiff, but especially putative class representatives seeking to represent 
millions of absent class members in pursuit of vast damages and injunctive relief. 
Second, nearly all the Merchant Plaintiffs are corporate entities that have accepted payment 
cards for over a dozen years, over which time several individuals may have held relevant roles at 
the companies.  It is therefore not surprising that the parties agreed, and the Court approved, that 
Visa could take up to three Rule 30(b)(1) depositions and one Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of each 
Merchant Plaintiff.  Plaintiffs’ reliance on United States v. Amex to suggest this is unreasonable, 
is misplaced.  In that negotiated resolution, the parties agreed that Amex could have up to 42 hours 
for a single merchant plaintiff in recognition of the potential need for that time.  Here, Visa is only 
entitled to a maximum of 28 hours for a Merchant Plaintiff.  To be clear, Visa will be judicious in 
noticing depositions of the putative class representatives, but it cannot be expected to determine at 
this stage which witnesses it will need to depose and for how long.  The parties instead should 
work in good faith to address any concerns regarding specific depositions. 
Third, the unreasonable nature of even Private Plaintiffs’ alternative proposal is shown by 
the fact that if Visa conducted just two seven-hour depositions of each Merchant Plaintiff (half of 
the depositions previously agreed upon), that alone would consume two-thirds of Visa’s deposition 
time in the DOJ Action, before considering any additional time with cardholders.   
Lastly, Visa does not object to the Government being granted some additional time to 
examine the Private Plaintiffs now that depositions in the private litigations may be used in the 
DOJ Action.  But the Government seeks 1 hour per Merchant Plaintiff and 30 minutes per 
Cardholder Plaintiff.  Given the Government’s aligned interests with Private Plaintiffs, one half 
hour per Private Plaintiff deposition is sufficient and fair.  That is the same amount of time Visa 
has to re-direct its own witnesses without it counting against Visa’s 350 hours.  If the Government 
needs more time, it may draw on its own 350-hour allotment, just as additional time Visa spends 
questioning its own witnesses would count against Visa’s hours. 
Case 1:24-cv-07214-JGK     Document 132     Filed 03/06/26     Page 3 of 5

4 
US 256161703 
 
Respectfully Submitted, 
 
By:  /s/ Christopher Jackson____________ 
Christopher Jackson 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE, ANTITRUST DIVISION 
450 Fifth Street, N.W., Suite 4000 
Telephone: (202) 894-4266 
Facsimile: (202) 514-7308 
christopher.jackson5@usdoj.gov 
 
Counsel for Plaintiff, the United States 
 
/s/ Brent W. Johnson __________ 
Brent W. Johnson  
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL 
PLLC 
1100 New York Ave. NW, Eighth Floor 
Washington, DC 20005 
(202) 408-4600 
bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com 
 
/s/ Christopher L. Lebsock 
____ 
Christopher L. Lebsock  
HAUSFELD LLP 
600 Montgomery Street 
Suite 3200 
San Francisco, CA 94111  
Tel: (415) 633-1908 
Fax: (415) 633-4980 
clebsock@hausfeld.com 
 
Co-Lead Counsel for Merchant Plaintiffs 
and the Proposed Class 
 
/s/ Christopher J. Cormier__________ 
Christopher J. Cormier  
BURNS CHAREST LLP 
4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200 
Washington, DC 20016 
Tel: (202) 577-3977 
ccormier@burnscharest.com 
 
 
/s/ Margaret A. Rogers  
 
Margaret A. Rogers  
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP  
250 West 55th Street  
New York, New York 10019  
Telephone: (212) 836-8000  
Facsimile: (212) 836-6711  
Margaret.Rogers@arnoldporter.com 
 
/s/ Beth Wilkinson         
 
Beth Wilkinson   
WILKINSON STEKLOFF LLP 
2001 M Street NW, 10th floor  
Washington, DC 20036 
Telephone: (202) 847-4000 
Facsimile: (202) 847-4005  
bwilkinson@wilkinsonstekloff.com  
 
Counsel for Defendant Visa, Inc. 
 
Case 1:24-cv-07214-JGK     Document 132     Filed 03/06/26     Page 4 of 5

5 
US 256161703 
/s/ Adam J. Zapala_______________ 
Adam J. Zapala  
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, 
LLP 
840 Malcolm Road 
Burlingame, CA 94010 
Telephone: (650) 697-6000 
Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 
azapala@cpmlegal.com 
 
Executive Committee Counsel for 
Merchant Plaintiffs and the Proposed 
Class 
 
/s/ Richard M. Paul III____________ 
Richard M. Paul III   
PAUL LLP  
600 Broadway Boulevard, Suite 600 
Kansas City, Missouri 64105  
Telephone: (816) 984-8100  
Rick@PaulLLP.com  
 
/s/ Joseph R. Saveri______________ 
Joseph R. Saveri  
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP  
601 California Street, Suite 1505  
San Fransico, California 94108  
Telephone: (415) 500-6800  
jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com  
 
/s/ Jason S. Hartley______________ 
Jason S. Hartley  
HARTLEY LLP  
101 W. Broadway, Suite 820  
San Diego, California 92101  
Telephone: (619) 400-5822  
hartley@hartleyllp.com  
 
Co-Lead Counsel for Cardholder Plaintiffs 
and the Proposed Class 
 
Case 1:24-cv-07214-JGK     Document 132     Filed 03/06/26     Page 5 of 5

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.nysd.628802.132.0.pdf

Size

215,577 bytes

SHA-256

3cb9c0a185d3c0296c3e4bd8c9b0ea3bbd08eca8019bd7e9b2a6a1be5cf1241e

Our copy

gov.uscourts.nysd.628802.132.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)