UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. AT&T INC. et al

Filing 34

MOTION to Intervene by GOOGLE INC. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Motion for Additional Relief, # 3 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Additional Relief, # 4 Declaration, # 5 Exhibit A, # 6 Exhibit B, # 7 Exhibit C, # 8 Exhibit D, # 9 Exhibit E, # 10 Exhibit F, # 11 Exhibit G)(znmw, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/27/2011: # 12 Corporate Disclosure Statement) (znmw, ).

EXHIBIT F

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, STATE
OF NEW YORK, STATE OF
WASHINGTON, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
STATE OF ILLINOIS, COMMONWEALTH
OF MASSACHUSETTS, STATE OF OHIO,
AND COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA,

Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-01560-ESH
Hon. Ellen S. Huvelle

Plaintiffs,
I!1

AT&T INC., T-MOBILE USA, INC., AND
DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG,
Defendants.

DECLARATION OF JOHN JANHUNEN IN SUPPORT OF
NON-PARTY GOOGLE INC.’S MOTION
FOR ADDITIONAL RELIEF UNDER THE PROTECTIVE ORDER
JOHN JANHUNEN hereby declares as follows:
1. I am Corporate Counsel at Google Inc. ("Google"). I submit this declaration in support
of Google’s motion for additional relief under the protective order currently in place in
the above-captioned action ("this Action")
2. I oversaw the document production that Google made to the United States Department of
Justice ("DOJ") in response to Civil Investigative Demand No. 26542 (the "CID"). I am
personally familiar with the general subject matter of the documents that Google
produced to the DOJ in response to the CID.
3. Google produced highly confidential and competitively sensitive documents to the DOJ
in response to the CID, including but not limited to product development and launch
plans related to Android.

4. 1 understand that the protective order currently in place in this Action may allow the
parties to use the documents from Google’s production in pleadings and open court, and
share them with experts they retained, without first notifying Google and giving Google
an opportunity to explain to the Court the harm that would occur from such use. Google
would be harmed by this procedure, as it would not be able to explain to the Court in
advance of disclosure the confidential nature of the subject matter of its documents, and
the business, competitive and financial injury that would result from disclosure of those
documents on the public record, in open court or to a particular expert retained by the
Defendants in this Action (for instance if that expert regularly performs work for one of
Google’s competitors),
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on the 26th day of September, 2011, at Mountain View, California.