The Court has determined for several reasons that a party may redact or withhold responsive documents only where they are covered by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine or contain sensitive personally identifying information. First, the particular nature of the antitrust conspiracy allegations in the MDL mean that an understanding of the context of particular documents may be critical, which could be impeded by the withholding or redaction of responsive documents or document families. Second, there are provisions in place to protect competitively sensitive documents, including the Protective Order (Pretrial Order No. 53), which permits such documents to be designated for viewing by “Outside Counsel Eyes Only.” Third, the parties may raise objections to discovery requests for overbreadth or other reasons, and the Special Masters are available to assist the parties and the Court with the resolution of such disputes in a timely and cost-effective manner that will permit the discovery in this complex MDL to move forward comprehensively. The Court is confident that the parties will continue to cooperate through the discovery process and that the parties will be vigilant with regard to protecting legitimate interests in preserving the confidentiality of competitively sensitive information.

AND NOW, this 9th day of April 2019, upon consideration of all of the parties' submissions and arguments on the Proposed ESI Protocol, it is hereby ORDERED that in responding to discovery requests in the MDL, a party may redact or withhold responsive documents only for attorney-client privilege, protection under the work-product doctrine, and sensitive personally identifying information.

It is so ORDERED.