1 BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP David Boies (pro hac vice pending) John M. Lyons (pro hac vice forthcoming) 2 Alexander Boies (pro hac vice pending) 55 Hudson Yards, 20th Floor 3 333 Main Street New York, NY 10001 Armonk, NY 10504 Tel.: 212 446 2332 4 Tel.: (914) 749-8200 [email protected] [email protected] 5 [email protected] LAW OFFICES OF LINGEL H. WINTERS 6 BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP Lingel H. Winters, CA Bar No. 37759 7 Mark C. Mao, CA Bar No. 236165 A Professional Corporation Beko Reblitz-Richardson, CA Bar No. 238027 2900 Shasta Rd. 8 Joshua Michelangelo Stein, CA Bar No. 298856 Berkeley, California 94708 Margaux Poueymirou, CA Bar No. 356000 [email protected] 9 44 Montgomery St., 41st Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 10 Tel.: (415) 293-6800 11 Fax: (415) 293-6899 [email protected] 12 [email protected] [email protected] 13 [email protected] 14

15 Counsel for Plaintiff James Attridge and All Others Similarly Situated 16 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 18 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 19 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 20

JAMES ATTRIDGE, on behalf of themselves Case No.: 3:25-cv-02775-RFL 21 and all others similarly situated, 22 [PROPOSED] ORDER AS MODIFIED Plaintiff, GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 23 APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CLASS v. COUNSEL 24 GOOGLE LLC; ALPHABET INC.; XXVI Judge: Hon. Rita F. Lin 25 HOLDINGS INC., 26 Defendants. 27 1 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Interim Class Counsel. Having considered 2 Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Interim Class Counsel, the supporting Declarations of David Boies and 3 Lingel H. Winters, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and all other papers and 4 arguments submitted, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS as follows: 5 In selecting interim class counsel, district courts typically look to the mandatory criteria of Rule 6 23(g)(1)(A) governing the appointment of class counsel. See, e.g., Parkinson v. Hyundai Motor Am., No. 7 CV06-34AHS (MLGX),

, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2006). The Rule 23(g)(1)(A) criteria 8 that a court “must consider” when appointing class counsel are: 9 (i) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential claims in the action; 10 (ii) counsel’s experience in handling class actions, other complex litigation, and the types of claims 11 asserted in the action; 12 (iii) counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law; and 13 (iv) the resources that counsel will commit to representing the class. 14 Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A). None of the four foregoing factors are individually determinative. 15 Instead, such factors provide a framework to analyze and determine whether counsel seeking appointment 16 can fairly and adequately represent the class. Further, Rule 23(g)(1)(B) provides that a court may, in its 17 discretion, “consider any other matter pertinent to counsel’s ability to fairly and adequately represent the 18 interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(B). 19 When presented with a single application for appointment as class counsel (as is the case here), 20 Rule 23(g)(2) provides that a court may appoint the co-lead class counsel upon a finding that such counsel 21 are “adequate under Rule 23(g)(1) and (4).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(2). 22 A common means of selecting class counsel is by “private ordering.” Manual for Complex 23 Litigation (Fourth) § 21.272 (2004). That is, “[t]he lawyers agree who should be lead class counsel and 24 the court approves the selection after a review to ensure that the counsel selected is adequate to represent 25 the class interests.” Id. Efforts of plaintiffs’ counsel to coordinate their activities among themselves 26 “should be encouraged.” Id. § 10.22. 27 1 The Court hereby finds that appointment of co-lead interim class counsel is appropriate under 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3). Early appointment of co-lead interim class counsel will ensure 3 the efficient management of this complex antitrust class action, clarify responsibility for pre-certification 4 proceedings, and protect the interests of the proposed class. The Court finds that both Boies Schiller 5 Flexner LLP (“BSF”), with David Boies as lead attorney, and Lingel H. Winters, possess qualifications, 6 experience, and resources to serve as Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel. 7 The declarations submitted with this motion detail how BSF and Mr. Winters have already made 8 substantial commitment to this case. Mr. Winters filed the initial complaint and his declaration describes 9 how he led all initial litigation steps, including pre-complaint investigation and early strategic planning. 10 The declaration from Mr. Boies details how BSF has familiarized itself with the facts and legal issues and 11 how BSF is collaborating with Mr. Winters on a second amended complaint and preparing to respond to 12 anticipated motions and discovery. Both BSF and Mr. Winters have committed to devoting the resources 13 necessary to prosecute this action vigorously, efficiently, and expeditiously. 14 The Court further finds that the appointment of BSF (with David Boies as lead attorney) and Mr. 15 Winters as Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel is in the best interests of the putative class. Their combined 16 experience, expertise, and resources will ensure that the class is represented by counsel with a proven 17 track record of success in analogous antitrust class actions and the ability to effectively coordinate and 18 lead this litigation. 19 The Court acknowledges that an objection to this motion has been filed by a group of plaintiffs in 20 Arcell v. Google, 2022-cv-02499-RFL, a related case before the Court. (Dkt. No. 45.) The objectors state 21 that Mr. Winters previously represented the Arcell plaintiffs in the related action, that during that time he 22 had “access to confidential information” about the Arcell plaintiffs, and that “the appointment of Lingel 23 Winters and David Boies is a direct conflict of interest with their case.” (Id.) However, the objectors do 24 not identify any specific confidential information Mr. Winters possesses, nor do they explain how their 25 interests are materially adverse to the interests of the putative class in this case. See Cal. R. Pro. Conduct 26 1.9 (a), (c). Therefore, the objectors have not raised any basis to find that Mr. Winters or BSF will not 27 adequately serve as interim class counsel. 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), the Court appoints the following as Interim 2 || Co-Lead Class Counsel to act on behalf of the putative class in this action: Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, 3 || with David Boies as lead attorney, and Lingel H. Winters. 4 Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel shall have the authority and responsibility for the conduct of all 5 || pre-certification proceedings on behalf of the putative class, including but not limited to: 6 e Coordinating and overseeing the prosecution of this action; 7 e Preparing and filing any amended complaints; 8 e Opposing any motions directed at the pleadings; 9 e Propounding and responding to discovery; 10 e Engaging and consulting with experts; 1] e Briefing and arguing all motions; 12 e Conducting settlement negotiations; 13 e Communicating with defense counsel and the Court on behalf of the putative class; 14 e Performing such other duties as are necessary to advance the interests of the putative class. 15 IT ISSO ORDERED. 16 Dated: August 30, 2025 BZ = HON. RITA F- LIN 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 || Case No.: 3:25-cv-02775-RFL [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CLASS