\n<\/p>\n
You would barely know Google is in the middle of one of the most consequential antitrust trials in decades<\/a> right now. Although some important witnesses<\/a> have testified in open court and documents have been posted online after a delay, access to the trial is still uncertain and sporadic because Judge Amit Mehta appears to have bought into Google\u2019s argument that the particulars of its search business are simply too sensitive to open up.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n This is, of course, a tough position to hold in a trial that is entirely about the particulars of Google\u2019s search business and how it shields that business from competition by striking exclusive deals with various players in the industry \u2014 most importantly, Apple<\/a>. But it appears to have held sway over Judge Mehta, who has made public access to the trial only slightly easier<\/a> since it started. But even then, court sessions have remained closed with no notice and documents have been posted only days after being discussed on the stand.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cExcluding the public from the courtroom not only impedes its ability to understand how this consequential case is being litigated \u2014 it also undermines the public\u2019s faith in its justice system.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Judge Mehta\u2019s general bent toward opacity<\/a> has made understanding what\u2019s going on in this trial almost impossible \u2014 just compare how much the Google trial is being covered to other major tech trials like FTC v. Microsoft<\/em><\/a> or Epic v. Apple<\/em><\/a>, where the media and public were able to follow and report on the proceedings in nearly real time.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n To that end, The<\/em> New York Times<\/em> has just filed a motion with the court to open things up. The motion is supported by Bloomberg<\/em>, The<\/em> Wall Street Journal<\/em>, the New York Post<\/em>, MLex, and Law360 and argues that Judge Mehta hold hearings before closing the courtroom and provide timely access to exhibits and testimony. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cSealing the courtroom is an extraordinary step in any case,\u201d argues the Times<\/em>. \u201cIn this litigation, perhaps the most important antitrust trial in decades, the stakes are especially high. Excluding the public from the courtroom not only impedes its ability to understand how this consequential case is being litigated \u2014 it also undermines the public\u2019s faith in its justice system.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n The motion also argues that exhibits should be posted in a timely manner and that witness testimony should be unsealed and unredacted unless specific reasons are given. In particular, the motion argues that the testimony of Apple\u2019s Eddy Cue and Google\u2019s Jerry Dischler should be completely unsealed, \u201cgiven the absence of any justification for these redactions.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Full disclosure: I\u2019ve asked our legal team to sign The Verge<\/em> and Vox Media on to any further motions of this kind since covering this trial has basically sucked. You can think whatever you want of Google or the DOJ, but it\u2019s pretty universal that holding a trial of this magnitude behind closed doors means Judge Mehta is asking us to trust him just a little too much.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n