Judge Brinkema emphasized, “Moreover, neither Yelp nor NMA are parties in this litigation. As such, Yelp and NMA have failed to provide ‘patently clear’ evidence demonstrating how specific confidential information Paul Weiss may have obtained during the previous representation is substantially related to the dispute in the instant litigation.”
However, Judge Brinkema stipulated that any Paul Weiss attorneys and support staff with prior involvement in representations related to Google’s alleged anticompetitive conduct on behalf of Yelp or NMA should be barred from participating in the Justice Department’s case.
Yelp and NMA argued that they had engaged Paul Weiss for counsel on antitrust investigations into Google in 2016. They contend that Paul Weiss still holds privileged and confidential information related to their representations, which has now become a conflict as the firm represents Google in the ad tech case.
Last Friday, Judge Brinkema, during a brief hearing, firmly asserted that it’s insufficient for Yelp and NMA to merely speculate about potential economic impacts in the future due to the DOJ case. She also declared that the case is not “substantially related” to Paul Weiss’ past work for Yelp and the trade group, which involved advocating for DOJ enforcement that ultimately led to the current search monopolization case in a D.C. federal court bench trial.
