How antitrust cases are unique, effectively using experts and managing hearings and oral arguments were among the topics discussed by a panel of judges from across the country at an April 2 program presented at the ABA 2025 Antitrust Spring Meeting in Washington, D.C.
April 07, 2025 Antitrust
Judges offer advice for managing complex antitrust cases
During the session, “Views from the Bench: Non-Mergers,” the judges shared how they approach and manage non-merger cases that involve dynamic facts and complex economic testimony.
The panel included Judge James E. Boasberg, chief judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; Judge Denise L. Cote, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; and Judge R. David Proctor, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
After his introduction, Boasberg joked that he was “very happy to be here where we’re talking just about antitrust.” He is the federal judge who ruled against President Donald Trump’s deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members and is now handling a lawsuit related to senior Trump officials’ use of Signal, the messaging app.
Gonzalez Rogers said antitrust cases are different from other cases because discovery in antitrust cases is more complex; experts are essential; and antitrust trials are fundamentally different from other types of trials.
“Discovery should be focused,” Cote added. “If there are going to be disputes, they should be identified early on,” she said, adding that her role is to “help the parties identify, maybe even require them, to identify early any principle disputes they’re going to have. I want speed of the statement of the problem and speed in resolution of the problem.”
Boasberg agreed, saying “the most critical facet” for him in antitrust discovery periods is progress and momentum. “Getting bogged down in discovery does no one any good. It certainly doesn’t do the judge any good and it doesn’t do the parties any good,” he said. “In many of the cases, the parties just want answers. They may not necessarily agree to what the discovery ruling is. They just want rulings so they can keep going. The longer you hold on to things and wring your hands, the less satisfied they’re going to be.”
The panelists said experts are the most important part of an antitrust case because they have to explain complicated issues to a variety of constituencies.
“There are two types of smart people,” Proctor said about expert witnesses. “The first type takes a very straightforward issue and makes it sound complex. The more useful smart person is someone who takes a very complex issue and breaks it down into components to assist and serve others.”
Gonzalez Rogers said over-sealing of documents and claims of attorney-client privilege “are used in the extreme.”
“It is incredibly taxing on chambers,” Gonzalez Rogers said. “In these big cases, thinking about issues of sealing before you get to trial is really important. Talking to the judge in advance … will help. We don’t have big staffs. Most of us have two or three law clerks and we have hundreds of cases.
“Understand that we are a public institution and that means transparency is important for the public and for the resolution of these cases,” Gonzalez Rogers said. “We are not going to seal everything just because you don’t want it out there.”
Ginsberg, offering career advice, said, “The antitrust ecology here in the United States … is unlike that of the rest of the world. It is superior to what you’ll find anywhere else. The reason is we don’t have these silos. We move back and forth from government to private practice. It’s what makes our global system work better than it does in any other environment where everyone is siloed and no one’s had the experience of being on the other side of the table.”
Nearly 4,000 legal, data privacy and consumer professionals, academics and economists from 70 countries attended the meeting, which had the second largest attendance in its history.
Related links:
- ABA Antitrust Law Section
- “Key takeaways from recent FTC and DOJ deal challenges”
- Governmental and Legislative Work: Federal Court Funding
- ABA Center for Professional Responsibility: Model Code of Judicial Conduct 2007
- ABA Journal
- “DC Circuit allows Trump to fire independent agency board members, for now; are administrative judges at risk?”
- “Federal judge who ruled against Google is 'taken aback' by its efforts to avoid paper trail”
- “Bill to create 66 new federal judgeships advances”
- “This Harvard Law prof thinks constitutional theory is a terrible way to pick a judge”