PUBLIC

1 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

Docket No. 9412 

COMPLAINT COUNSEL’S MOTION TO COMPEL 

DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM RESPONDENTS

Pursuant to FTC Rule of Practice 3.38(a), Complaint Counsel respectfully moves the 

Court for an order compelling Respondents Microsoft Corporation and Activision Blizzard, Inc. 

to comply with this Court’s October 26 Order by (1) conducting a reasonable search for, and 

producing in timely fashion, documents responsive to Request for Production 5 to Microsoft and 

Request for Production 4 to Activision in Complaint Counsel’s Third Set of Requests for 

Production to Respondents and (2) producing corporate designees to testify on the topics noticed 

in Complaint Counsel’s Second Notices of Deposition to Respondents. 

In the Matter of

Microsoft Corp.

a corporation; 

and 

Activision Blizzard, Inc.,

a corporation.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/21/2023 OSCAR NO 609221 | PAGE Page 1 of 35 *-PUBLIC 
 PUBLIC

2 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

Docket No. 9412 

COMPLAINT COUNSEL’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO 

COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM RESPONDENTS

On October 26, 2023, this Court issued an Order granting leave for Complaint Counsel to 

take discovery relevant to the Ubisoft Agreement1

 and the Sony Agreement.2 Respondents have 

claimed that these agreements are procompetitive and remedy the anticompetitive effects of 

Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision (the “Transaction”), and Respondents plan to introduce 

both agreements as evidence in support of their defense. See October 26 Order at 2-3. 

1 The Ubisoft Agreement consists of several complex, interrelated agreements between 

Microsoft, Activision, and French videogame publisher Ubisoft. 

2 See Order on Complaint Counsel’s Motion to Allow Discovery Regarding Respondents’ 

Agreements with Ubisoft Entertainment SA and Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC, Oct. 26, 

2023 (“October 26 Order”). As the Court found, Complaint Counsel had no opportunity to 

conduct any discovery related to the Ubisoft Agreement nor the circumstances surrounding the 

execution of the Sony Agreement, given that both agreements were executed months after the 

close of discovery. See October 26 Order at 3. 

In the Matter of

Microsoft Corp.

a corporation; 

 and 

Activision Blizzard, Inc.,

a corporation. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/21/2023 OSCAR NO 609221 | PAGE Page 2 of 35 *-PUBLIC 
 PUBLIC

3 

Despite this, and in violation of this Court’s October 26 Order, Respondents refuse to 

provide (1) any corporate testimony about terms that were proposed but not included in the final 

Ubisoft Agreement; (2) any corporate testimony about the alternatives to the Ubisoft Agreement 

that Respondents considered; (3) any corporate testimony from Activision on all but three 

noticed topics; and (4) any documents or corporate testimony about Respondents’ own 

agreement to extend their merger’s timing, which was a necessary precondition to reaching the 

Ubisoft Agreement. Respondents have objected to this discovery as irrelevant. Regarding the 

corporate testimony, Respondents have raised an untimely and meritless argument that 

Microsoft’s corporate designee will speak for Activision (and vice versa). 

Complaint Counsel respectfully requests an order compelling Respondents to comply 

with this Court’s October 26 Order and provide the requested documents and noticed corporate 

testimony. 

BACKGROUND

On October 26, 2023, this Court reopened discovery relevant to the Ubisoft Agreement. 

See October 26 Order at 4. The Court applied Rule 3.31(c)(1), which provides that “[p]arties may 

obtain discovery to the extent that it may be reasonably expected to yield information relevant to 

the allegations of the complaint, to the proposed relief, or to the defenses of any respondent.” 

The Court found that “there is no dispute as to the relevance” of the Ubisoft Agreement, which 

Respondents intend to offer as evidence in support of their defense, see October 26 Order at 3, 

and rejected Respondents’ argument that the Ubisoft Agreement “speaks for itself,” see Resp. 

Microsoft’s Opp. to Complaint Counsel’s Mot. to Extend Fact Discovery, October 20, 2023 

(“Opposition”) at 6. 

Requests for Production. On October 27, Complaint Counsel served Respondents with its 

Third Set of Requests for Production (“RFPs”). RFP No. 5 to Microsoft and RFP No. 4 to 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/21/2023 OSCAR NO 609221 | PAGE Page 3 of 35 *-PUBLIC 
 PUBLIC

4 

Activision request documents relating to negotiations to extend the termination date for the 

Transaction. Respondents have refused to produce any documents in response to these RFPs. 

Complaint Counsel conferred extensively and in good faith with Respondents to resolve 

this disagreement. Instead of engaging in productive discussions, however, Respondents 

proposed a compromise that yielded no documents responsive to these RFPs. When Complaint 

Counsel clarified that Respondents’ proposal did not produce responsive documents, 

Respondents stated that they would not produce any documents responsive to Microsoft RFP 5 

or Activision RFP 4. Respondents even refused to state whether they had investigated the scope 

of potentially responsive documents. Because Respondents were unwilling to discuss the scope 

of potentially responsive documents, Complaint Counsel was not in a position to propose a 

compromise to resolve the disagreement. 

Corporate Depositions. On November 27, 2023, Complaint Counsel served Second 

Notices of Deposition to each of Respondents Microsoft and Activision. Respondents did not 

respond. Per Rule 3.34(c), the deadline for Respondents to move to quash or modify these 

notices was December 7, 2023. 

On December 5, 2023, Complaint Counsel asked Respondents to identify corporate 

designees for each topic and offered to meet and confer on scheduling. On December 6, 2023, 

Respondents proposed to meet and confer two days later—i.e., the day after the deadline to move 

to quash or limit the notices. 

Respondents refused to prepare an Activision corporate witness on six of the nine topics 

noticed for Activision. While this Court ordered discovery of information from “each 

Respondent,” see October 26 Order at 4, Respondents argued that the corporate witnesses could 

testify on each other’s behalf and unilaterally asserted that the Microsoft witness would testify on 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/21/2023 OSCAR NO 609221 | PAGE Page 4 of 35 *-PUBLIC 
 PUBLIC

5 

topics directed to Activision (and vice versa). Respondents further refused to prepare either a 

Microsoft or Activision corporate witness on six topics relevant to the Ubisoft Agreement.

Specifically, Respondents refused to make witnesses available to testify on (i) Microsoft and 

Activision Corporate Deposition Topic 2(d), which seek testimony about terms that were 

proposed but not included in the final Ubisoft Agreement, (ii) Microsoft and Activision 

Corporate Deposition Topic 5, which seek testimony about alternative potential purchasers of 

Activision’s cloud streaming rights (i.e., other than Ubisoft), and (iii) Microsoft Corporate 

Deposition Topic 9 and Activision Corporate Deposition Topic 8, which seek testimony about 

negotiations to extend the termination date for the Transaction. 

Complaint Counsel met and conferred with Respondents in a good faith effort to resolve 

these disagreements but was unable to reach an agreement.

ARGUMENT

Respondents’ refusal to provide discovery about the Ubisoft Agreement violates this 

Court’s October 26 Order. As this Court already found, the Ubisoft Agreement is relevant to the 

issues in this case, and Respondents cannot justify their violation of this Court’s Order. 

Respondents have forfeited their objections to the notices for corporate testimony, and their 

arguments are otherwise meritless for the reasons explained below.

I. Respondents’ Refusals to Provide Relevant Corporate Testimony Are 

Forfeited Because They Are Untimely

Respondents failed to timely move to quash or modify Complaint Counsel’s notices for 

corporate testimony. Rule 3.34(c) requires the subject of a deposition notice to move to quash or 

limit the notice “within the earlier of 10 days after service thereof or the time of compliance 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/21/2023 OSCAR NO 609221 | PAGE Page 5 of 35 *-PUBLIC 
 PUBLIC

6 

therewith.”3 Complaint Counsel served the deposition notices at issue on November 27, 2023, 

and the deadline for Respondents to move to quash or limit the notices expired on December 7. 

Respondents raised no issue with the deposition notices until nine days after the subpoenas were 

served, when they requested to meet and confer the day after Respondents’ December 7 

deadline. Respondents have not identified any excuse for failing to timely raise their objections 

or move. Respondents were responsible under Rule 3.34(c) for moving to quash or limit the 

deposition notices, their neglect should not be excused, and they have forfeited any opposition to 

the notices.4

II. Respondents Refuse to Comply with This Court’s Order Requiring 

Respondents to Designate Witnesses for Corporate Testimony 

Even if not forfeited, Respondents’ objections to the corporate deposition notices are 

meritless. Respondents refuse to designate an Activision witness on all but three of the noticed 

topics. Respondents assert that any testimony from an Activision witness on the remaining topics 

would be “duplicative of Microsoft’s testimony.” See Exhibit G at 3. Their refusal to designate a 

corporate witness on relevant topics violates this Court’s October 26 Order, which permits 

Complaint Counsel to serve a “notice for a 3.33(c)(1) corporate deposition on each Respondent.” 

October 26 Order at 4 (emphasis added). 

This Court’s October 26 Order does not require Complaint Counsel to divide topics

between Activision and Microsoft corporate witnesses. And the Court should not allow such a 

division. Activision signed the Ubisoft Agreement, and this Court is entitled to hear testimony 

3

 3.34(c) applies to party deposition notices and third-party subpoenas ad testificandum. See 

Order, In re North Texas Specialty Physicians, No. 9312, 2003 WL 22936410, at *2 (FTC Dec. 

4, 2003). 

4 Had Respondents timely moved on their testimony objections by December 7, the parties’ 

disagreement over the relevance of these topics could have been resolved without the need for 

compressed holiday motions practice. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/21/2023 OSCAR NO 609221 | PAGE Page 6 of 35 *-PUBLIC 
 PUBLIC

7 

from Activision about the Ubisoft Agreement. There is no reason that Microsoft should testify on 

Activision’s behalf about events that occurred when Activision was an independent company, or 

vice versa. Activision’s role in the negotiations did not change when Respondents completed 

their merger, and Microsoft cannot limit the scope of relevant testimony after the fact. It is 

particularly egregious to do so on the basis that Respondents are a “single company,” Exhibit G 

at 3, after this Court has already determined that good cause exists for Activision and Microsoft

witnesses to sit for depositions. See October 26 Order at 4. 

III. Respondents Refuse to Provide Testimony About the Negotiations that Led 

to the Execution of the Ubisoft Agreement

Respondents refuse to provide relevant testimony about noticed topics related to the 

negotiations that led to the execution of the Ubisoft Agreement. Microsoft and Activision Topics 

2(d) and 5 seek testimony on terms that were proposed but not included in the final Ubisoft 

Agreement and testimony related to potential alternative purchasers of Activision’s streaming 

rights. See Exhibits D and E. These topics are relevant to assessing the adequacy of the Ubisoft 

Agreement. Understanding what terms were considered but not included in the final Ubisoft 

Agreement, why those terms were not included, and what Respondents believed the impact of 

those terms would be provides important context for assessing the terms of the final Ubisoft 

Agreement. And understanding potential purchasers that were considered and why they were not 

selected provides important context to assessing the adequacy of Ubisoft as a purchaser. 

Microsoft has already conceded the relevance of Topics 2(d) and 5 by producing 

documents in response to RFPs 2(a) (requesting communications with Ubisoft) and 2(b) 

(requesting documents analyzing or discussing alternative purchasers to Ubisoft). See Exhibit A. 

Respondents cannot now refuse to answer questions about these topics. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/21/2023 OSCAR NO 609221 | PAGE Page 7 of 35 *-PUBLIC 
 PUBLIC

8 

IV. Respondents Refuse to Provide Documents or Testimony About the 

Circumstances that Gave Rise to the Ubisoft Agreement 

Respondents refuse to produce any documents or provide any testimony regarding the 

negotiations to extend the termination date for their merger. Extending their own deal provided 

time to negotiate and execute the Ubisoft Agreement. Respondents’ refusal, which is premised 

on a claim that the information is not relevant, is inappropriate for two reasons. 

First, the Court already resolved this dispute and granted discovery into this issue in its 

October 26 Order. On October 10, 2023, Complaint Counsel moved this Court to allow 

discovery regarding the Ubisoft Agreement. Complaint Counsel explained in that motion that the 

Ubisoft Agreement and its possible effects on American consumers present complex questions of 

fact that require additional fact discovery. Complaint Counsel’s Mot. to Extend Fact Discovery, 

October 10, 2023 (“Motion”) at 6. Complaint Counsel specifically identified the need for 

discovery into Microsoft’s and Activision’s negotiations to extend the deadline for completing 

the Transaction, which provided time to negotiate and execute the Ubisoft Agreement. See id. at 

7-8. 

Respondents argued in their opposition that the Ubisoft Agreement “speaks for itself,” 

but they nevertheless proposed a limited discovery plan, arguing that information on the 

extension could be “readily obtained” through a limited set of document requests and a corporate 

deposition. See Opposition at 6, 8. This Court then ordered limited discovery. Respondents now 

contradict their prior position and seek to evade the Court’s October 26 Order. Respondents 

refuse to provide any information on the negotiations to extend the deadline for completing the 

Transaction. Respondents cannot ask to limit discovery on a topic and then—once discovery is 

ordered—relitigate whether there should be any discovery. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/21/2023 OSCAR NO 609221 | PAGE Page 8 of 35 *-PUBLIC 
 PUBLIC

9 

Second, even assuming this issue was not already resolved, Respondents cannot justify 

their failure to comply with their discovery obligations based on relevance. Microsoft and 

Activision extended the termination date for their merger so they could negotiate additional 

purported remedies to address the competitive harm arising from their merger. On July 18, 2023, 

Respondents extended the deadline to close the Transaction by three months, and Microsoft 

agreed to increase the Transaction’s $3 billion break fee to as much as $4.5 billion. See Exhibit I. 

Microsoft President Brad Smith announced that the purpose of the extension was to provide 

“ample time” to work through regulatory issues. See Exhibit J. The outcome of that work was the 

Ubisoft Agreement.

Respondents have refused to explain how Respondents could have agreed to extend the 

deadline for their merger without discussing the contours of a potential remedy—and there is no 

reason to think that they did.5

 Information about these negotiations may be reasonably expected 

to yield information relevant to the defenses of Respondents. Discovery into the extension of the 

merger deadline may reveal executives’ discussions about and reactions to potential remedies, 

including the impact of such purported remedies on the combined company’s business and on 

competition. All of this is relevant to the Ubisoft Agreement. Indeed, the Ubisoft Agreement 

would not exist absent the negotiations to extend the deadline—a fact that Respondents have 

acknowledged in their briefing before this Court and in public statements. See, e.g., Opposition 

at 8; Exhibit J. 

5

 Respondents have claimed that the disputed document requests amount to a “fishing 

expedition.” See Exhibit H. That is not the case. Complaint Counsel’s requests are narrowly 

tailored in time and scope and seek information on a topic that Respondents plan to introduce as 

a defense. As detailed above, the requests are reasonably calculated to lead to relevant evidence. 

Further, it is difficult to understand how Respondents could argue the requests are burdensome—

let alone amount to a “fishing expedition”—when they refuse to investigate the scope of 

responsive material or make a witness available to testify on the topic. See Exhibits G, H.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/21/2023 OSCAR NO 609221 | PAGE Page 9 of 35 *-PUBLIC 
 PUBLIC

10 

V. The Scope of Complaint Counsel’s Requests for Documents and Testimony 

Is Reasonable, and Respondents Cannot Show the Discovery Is Unduly 

Burdensome

Respondents have made no specific arguments about the burden or expense of the 

proposed discovery. In fact, with respect to documents, Respondents have refused to tell 

Complaint Counsel whether they even investigated the scope of potentially responsive 

documents. “Respondent’s general, unsupported allegations of burden and expense are 

insufficient to meet its burden of demonstrating that the requested discovery should be denied.” 

In re Sysco Corp., No. 9364, 2015 WL 3897396, at *3 (FTC June 17, 2015). 

In any event, the burden and expense of responding to the disputed requests is likely to be 

minimal. With respect to the disputed document requests, the relevant time period is short. 

Likewise, there is limited burden associated with preparing Microsoft and Activision witnesses 

to testify about negotiations that occurred within the last six months. Finally, Respondents have 

represented to this Court that information about the noticed topics can be “readily obtained” 

through document requests and a corporate deposition. Opposition at 8. Respondents cannot 

reverse course now and claim undue burdens that are contrary to their prior positions. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this Court should grant Complaint Counsel’s motion to compel 

deposition testimony and the production of documents. 

Dated: December 21, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Nicole Callan

Nicole Callan

Cem Akleman

Maria Cirincione

Meredith Levert

Merrick Pastore

James H. Weingarten

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/21/2023 OSCAR NO 609221 | PAGE Page 10 of 35 *-PUBLIC 
 PUBLIC

11 

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Telephone: (202) 326-2234 

Email: ncallan@ftc.gov 

 cakleman@ftc.gov 

 mcirincione@ftc.gov 

mlevert@ftc.gov

 mpastore@ftc.gov

jweingarten@ftc.gov 

Counsel Supporting the Complaint 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/21/2023 OSCAR NO 609221 | PAGE Page 11 of 35 *-PUBLIC 
 PUBLIC

12 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

Docket No. 9412 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

Upon consideration of Complaint Counsel’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses 

from Respondents and any opposition to that motion: 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Complaint Counsel’s Motion is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall produce documents responsive to 

Request for Production 5 to Microsoft and Request for Production 4 to Activision on a rolling 

basis and complete production of such responsive documents on or before January 17, 2024. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Microsoft and Activision shall each produce one or 

more corporate designees to testify on the topics in their respective corporate deposition notices 

10 days after completing production of responsive documents (or such other date(s) as agreed 

among the parties). 

In the Matter of

Microsoft Corp.

a corporation; 

 and 

Activision Blizzard, Inc.,

a corporation. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/21/2023 OSCAR NO 609221 | PAGE Page 12 of 35 *-PUBLIC 
 PUBLIC

13 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any supplemental exhibits from documents responsive 

to Request for Production 5 to Microsoft and Request for Production 4 to Activision be identified 

to both parties no later than 14 days after all document production is complete. If any such 

documents are confidential, the supplementing party must provide notice of intent to offer 

confidential materials to the opposing party within 14 days of such identification. 

ORDERED: ______________________________ 

D. Michael Chappell

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: ________________________ 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/21/2023 OSCAR NO 609221 | PAGE Page 13 of 35 *-PUBLIC 
 PUBLIC

14 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

Docket No. 9412 

STATEMENT REGARDING MEET AND CONFER PURSUANT TO 16 C.F.R. § 3.22(g)

Complaint Counsel respectfully submits this Statement, pursuant to Rule 3.22(g) of the 

Federal Trade Commission’s Rules of Adjudicative Practice and Provision 4 of this Court’s 

Scheduling Order. Complaint Counsel has attempted to confer in good faith with counsel for 

Respondents Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) and Activision Blizzard, Inc. (“Activision”) to 

obtain the documents requested in Complaint Counsel’s Third Set of Requests for Production 

(the “RFPs”) and the testimony requested in Complaint Counsel’s November 27, 2023 Notices of 

Deposition on a timely basis without the Court’s intervention.

On October 26, 2023, this Court reopened discovery for the purpose of taking discovery 

relevant to the Ubisoft Agreement and the Sony Agreement. See Oct. 26 Order at 4. 

In the Matter of

Microsoft Corp.

a corporation; 

 and 

Activision Blizzard, Inc.,

a corporation. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/21/2023 OSCAR NO 609221 | PAGE Page 14 of 35 *-PUBLIC 
 PUBLIC

15 

Requests for Production. On October 27, 2023, Complaint Counsel served Respondents 

with its Third Set of Requests for Production Issued to Respondent Microsoft and its Third Set of 

Requests for Production Issued to Respondent Activision. See Exhibits A, B. On November 3, 

2023, Respondents served Complaint Counsel with Respondents’ Responses and Objections to 

Complaint Counsel’s Third Set of Requests for Production. See Exhibit C.

Complaint Counsel had an initial meet and confer with Respondents via videoconference 

on November 6, 2023 at 4:00 p.m. to discuss Respondents’ Responses and Objections. 

Complaint Counsel subsequently exchanged numerous emails with Respondents in an 

effort to reach an agreement on its RFPs. See, e.g., Exhibits F, G, H. 

Respondents repeatedly demanded and rejected Complaint Counsel’s explanations of the 

relevance of various RFPs, both in meet and confers and by email. See Exhibits F, G, H. 

Respondents also proposed a compromise to respond to Microsoft RFP 5 and Activision 

RFP 4 on November 13, 2023. See Exhibit F at 14. However, after reviewing documents 

Microsoft produced in response to other RFPs, it become clear to Complaint Counsel that 

Microsoft’s proposed compromise would result in no responsive documents being produced in 

response to the disputed RFPs. It was only after reviewing documents that Complaint Counsel 

became aware that Respondents’ proposed compromise yielded no responsive documents.6 It 

was, however, within Respondents’ knowledge at the time Respondents made the proposal. See

6

 Specifically, Respondents proposed a compromise by which Respondents would respond to 

Microsoft RFP 5 and Activision RFP 4 using search terms designed to identify documents in 

response to Microsoft RFP 2, which asks, in part, for all documents relating to the Ubisoft 

Agreement. After reviewing Microsoft’s rolling document productions, it became clear to 

Complaint Counsel that Ubisoft was not known to be the buyer of Activision’s cloud streaming 

rights at the time negotiations to extend the termination date for the Transaction took place. As a 

result, no documents were produced that are responsive to Microsoft RFP 5 and Activision RFP 

4. See Exhibit H at 1, 3-4. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/21/2023 OSCAR NO 609221 | PAGE Page 15 of 35 *-PUBLIC 
 PUBLIC

16 

Exhibit H at 1, 3-4. When Complaint Counsel raised this concern, Respondents admitted for the 

first time on December 11, 2023 that they had no expectation that their proposed compromise 

would yield responsive documents. See Exhibit G at 7-8. Respondents further refused to tell 

Complaint Counsel whether they had even investigated the scope of potentially responsive 

documents. See Exhibit H at 1, 4. Because Respondents were unwilling to discuss the scope of 

potentially responsive materials, Complaint Counsel was unable to propose a path forward on 

Microsoft RFP 5 or Activision RFP 4. 

On December 13 at 10:00 a.m., Complaint Counsel met and conferred with Respondents 

via videoconference again and attempted to negotiate in good faith but was unable to reach an 

agreement. 

Corporate Testimony. On November 27, 2023, Complaint Counsel served Notices of 

Deposition to Respondents Microsoft and Activision. See Exhibits D, E. 

After hearing no response from Respondents on the Notices, on December 5, 2023, 

Complaint Counsel asked Respondents to identify corporate designees for each topic and offered 

to meet and confer on scheduling. See Exhibit G at 20-21. On December 6, Respondents replied 

and asked to meet and confer two days later. See Exhibit G at 19-20. 

On December 8, 2023, at 11:00 a.m., Complaint Counsel met and conferred with 

Respondents via videoconference regarding corporate deposition topics. An hour and a half 

before that meeting, Respondents objected for the first time to corporate deposition testimony by 

email. See Exhibit G at 12-18. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/21/2023 OSCAR NO 609221 | PAGE Page 16 of 35 *-PUBLIC 
PUBLIC

17 

At the December 8 meeting, Respondents refused to make an Activision corporate 

witness available for seven hours of testimony7 and refused to prepare an Activision corporate 

witness for six of the nine topics in Complaint Counsel’s deposition notice to Activision. 

Respondents further refused to make available a Microsoft or Activision corporate witness for 

six topics relevant to the Ubisoft Agreement.8

Respondents also objected to producing witnesses before the close of fact discovery on 

December 21. The parties reached agreement that the depositions could take place out of time. 

See Exhibit G at 1. 

On December 13 at 10:00 a.m., Complaint Counsel met and conferred with Respondents 

via videoconference again and attempted to negotiate in good faith but was unable to reach an 

agreement. Following that meeting, Complaint Counsel emailed Respondents to confirm that the 

parties were at an impasse and subsequently notified Respondents of its intent to move to enforce 

the Court’s October 26 Order. See Exhibit G at 1. 

Dated: December 21, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Nicole Callan

Nicole Callan

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Telephone: (202) 326-2234 

Email: ncallan@ftc.gov 

Counsel Supporting the Complaint 

7

 Respondents ultimately agreed to make an Activision witness available for seven hours as 

required under this Court’s Scheduling Order after Complaint Counsel notified Respondents of 

its intent to move to compel. 8

 Respondents refuse to make witnesses available to testify on (i) Microsoft Corporate 

Deposition Topic 9 and Activision Corporate Deposition Topic 8, (ii) Microsoft and Activision 

Corporate Deposition Topic 2(d), and (iii) Microsoft and Activision Corporate Deposition Topic 

5.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/21/2023 OSCAR NO 609221 | PAGE Page 17 of 35 *-PUBLIC 
EXHIBIT A 

– 

EXHIBIT H 

CONFIDENTIAL 

REDACTED IN ENTIRETY 

 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/21/2023 OSCAR NO 609221 | PAGE Page 18 PUBLIC of 35 *-PUBLIC 
EXHIBIT I 

 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/21/2023 OSCAR NO 609221 | PAGE Page 19 PUBLIC of 35 *-PUBLIC 
	 
	

	
 
 



 !"# 



 
$

$%&%'()*&)+,- .''(%&'/('	(.)* 

'.'0&+'.'&1''2'&'0&',-34%15)*+4%15)!*- 

 	(26177&,(8 +/(9'.'&0'(.',(&'&-  

'1:&' )")!* "!* +' .(&0&-  +
99 1'8-  +9015'& ,'.(8- 

;)1590(6%1'2&,6%1,6 (
	 +	,,&'.0&(01'/'(%2'..('- 

'&<'1'0'%9='&3+*)-"  

>?@ABCDC?EB?FCED?B?GHABEAIJDDK>?@DCKJLMNOPKQDR?S@DT 

1'.'((1 

&, 59=1 9'.'('/(' :(&''&', 
99(UV8)0&21%'  	W  ',X1=1'1'(&U'  YR?@ZDR?IHHBKHBCID?OK[O?\K]CQDR?^KB_`abQC\CJFCECJD?JG?GDKEC_A\DIJ?KAE\cEIDCEQcDR?QC\CJFKO\CFIDCKJKQDR?d?FCEDBIJD AJG?BIJcKQDR?QK\\K]CJFHBKeCECKJET 

f gBCDD?J@K__AJC@IDCKJEHABEAIJDDKdA\?hMiAJG?BDR?>?@ABCDC?ES@DNLjY^dMklmhMiP f >K\C@CDCJF_ID?BCI\HABEAIJDDKdA\?LhIaLMAJG?BDR?n[@RIJF?S@DNLjY^dMhlmLhIaLMP f oB?a@K__?J@?_?JD@K__AJC@IDCKJEHABEAIJDDKdA\?LhGaMNOPAJG?BDR?n[@RIJF?S@DNLjY^dMhlmLhGaMNOPP 

f oB?a@K__?J@?_?JD@K__AJC@IDCKJEHABEAIJDDKdA\?Lk?ahN@PAJG?BDR?n[@RIJF?S@DNLjY^dMhlmLk?ahN@PP pJGC@ID?Oc@R?@Z_IBZ]R?DR?BDR?B?FCEDBIJDCEIJ?_?BFCJFFBK]DR@K_HIJcIEG?QCJ?GCJdA\?hliKQDR?>?@ABCDC?ES@DKQLqkk NrMklmhliKQDRCE@RIHD?BPKBdA\?LMOaMKQDR?>?@ABCDC?En[@RIJF?S@DKQLqkhNrMhlmLMOaMKQDRCE@RIHD?BPm 

fn_?BFCJFsBK]DRYK_HIJc 

pQIJ?_?BFCJFFBK]DR@K_HIJctCJGC@ID?Oc@R?@Z_IBZCQDR?B?FCEDBIJDRIE?\?@D?GJKDDKAE?DR??[D?JG?GDBIJECDCKJH?BCKGQKB @K_H\cCJF]CDRIJcJ?]KBB?eCE?GQCJIJ@CI\I@@KAJDCJFEDIJGIBGEHBKeCG?GHABEAIJDDK>?@DCKJLkNIPKQDR?n[@RIJF?S@Dmf 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/21/2023 OSCAR NO 609221 | PAGE Page 20 PUBLIC of 35 *-PUBLIC 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/21/2023 OSCAR NO 609221 | PAGE Page 21 PUBLIC of 35 *-PUBLIC 
 	








 

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

K/0)*+23.454L.6>%E1$6'%"%/6%$%,'/6(1*%66%$1D$%%A%/6=6>%?M%66%$!D$%%A%/6BC.#)$")1/66(<>'->.1A(/D(6>%$6>'/D"N 

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

O 6>%@(A#1/+N ( -%$6'F'%,6(E1$%/61/,G%$D%$J)H6>166>%-(/,'6'(/"6(@*("'/D<'6>$%"#%-66(=PC6>%1--)$1-+(F6>% $%#$%"%/616'(/"1/,<1$$1/6'%"(F6>%@(A#1/+'/6>%G%$D%$!D$%%A%/6.")HQ%-66(1##*'-1H*%A16%$'1*'6+R)1*'F'%$". =+C6>%#%$F($A1/-%1/,-(A#*'1/-%'/1**A16%$'1*$%"#%-6"H+6>%@(A#1/+<'6>1**-(&%/1/6"1/,(H*'D16'(/" $%R)'$%,6(H%#%$F($A%,1/,-(A#*'%,<'6>H+'6)/,%$6>%G%$D%$!D$%%A%/6.1/,=8C6>%1H"%/-%(F1/+@(A#1/+ G16%$'1*!,&%$"%VFF%-61F6%$6>%,16%(F6>%G%$D%$!D$%%A%/66>16'"-(/6'/)'/D.'/%1->-1"%.<()*,H%"16'"F'%,1" (F6>%,16%(F6>%M%66%$!D$%%A%/6'F6>%@*("'/D<%$%6((--)$(/6>%,16%(F6>%M%66%$!D$%%A%/6S 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/21/2023 OSCAR NO 609221 | PAGE Page 22 PUBLIC of 35 *-PUBLIC 
 	
			


	







	


 	



		

	
	

 







	

	 
!"
 
 

"#

"

$	
	
 
"
	 
!"

	"

$	
"			
" 
	
 




"
	



	

 



%	  	




	


	




	
 



		

	



 

% 

& 
	
	





 







 

 

"
	
''()*++
,
"'-./.0
12 	3% 

& 

	
	





 






 



"

	

"

$

	 


4!5
	



	



	



 



	""
	

	

	
 !"	



"

	
"		
 
"
 


"	

16		
3





7
	
	% 

& 

	
	





 






 """
#
	






"

 #


 


6		




 
6		




"



#

 

 
	
	


7
	
	
7
	!

% 

& 
	 
!"	
	






8	 



	"

$	
"			
"
	 
 











"
 "



	





% 

& 
	 
!"	
"



 






 	
	
			



		
			 ./.0!

!

9/+**
 	





% 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/21/2023 OSCAR NO 609221 | PAGE Page 23 PUBLIC of 35 *-PUBLIC 
 	










 	


 !"#$#%#&"

"'&%%%%%%%%% '&(%%%%%%%%
!)	*(#%#&"

"'&(%%%%%%%%'+(%%%%%%%%, 

 

)


	
"'&%%%%%%%%%


" 	

	"


"
	


""

	
!, 

 

)


	

	

 ""'&%%%%%%%%%  
"	

	"
- 

 !
"
"

	

	"



 


.


	


/	

.
"	 

"
 ""
"	 	


		


		"
 
/"

"""

		
"	"
0)1

"
 "

""	"
	"
2",  !


")"
"


"

 ., 

 

"


/3
"")45*(	
6""., 

 
"



7*8#%#&

"
""
	
	
*%%9 
	"	
"
"	

"
"
	
"
"
 	
"

"""
"
"	"
 "
"
	
 "
"

"
"

""

	'#(%%%%%%%
*#: 	"6&*#%#&
6&*#%#+



	'(%%%%%%%%!"; "".<

"=!, 

 
"



""
3
"
 ""


"	

	"
,
 



FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/21/2023 OSCAR NO 609221 | PAGE Page 24 PUBLIC of 35 *-PUBLIC 
 	








	
 

















 


	



	





	
 












 


 





! 

"






#



$





# 	


%&

'(!'




! 

)*+,-./0. 1234352467*4*+,+3*8439:;<2=2*8. 

%&

 >
! ?


   '(!' #
@'AB(BC








DE! 



F
GGE!   '(H 
E
?I
J	

E
KFL#
M 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/21/2023 OSCAR NO 609221 | PAGE Page 25 PUBLIC of 35 *-PUBLIC 
	 
















 !"#

$


%&'
%


(


)
%
 
)&
)'

%
%


%&'

*%+ 


,-
.&'
 #
/0/! 123
456678
19 
 

 
 :'-;;
<
&


 =-<
&


 
 >&-

?

%#
@
(

AB

% @
(



' 








FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/21/2023 OSCAR NO 609221 | PAGE Page 26 PUBLIC of 35 *-PUBLIC 
	

	
 

  !"#$#%	&#"'#"(	 #) *)!#"(+"+",-.)! /) !"#$#%	0(1 2

#)
30($ )+	#)45644 

*!	 7 $ #)8 99("
3)! :/81
' !#-87("
3- 8
 )+ ,()	(#) !(3&(8 %#") (4;; 

2<"+"=		"*+"
)	 

 $8		"(+"
)	>	 $?=		"@A3
(	
($#%B-81533 $!-	
.1*!	 7 $ #)8 99("
3)!3(C8(D(" !#"'#"(	 #)>	?&#
'()1@A3 !"#$#%	&#"'#"(	 #)3(0($ )+	#)!#"'#"(	 #)>?E(")	@A3()
*)!#"(+"+",-.)!3( C8(D("!#"'#"(	 #)()
(D#881#D)
$-.$ 
 ("1#%E(")	>?"+",-.@()
3	#+	"D 		&#
'()1()
E(")	3	 ?E("	 $@AD 	"$'!		#	(	!"	( )*+"
)	()
E8()#%"+"3
(	
($#%B()-("1533(
#)+	E("	 $>	?"+" *+"
)	@A&(' 	(8 9
	"
$-$
.-	)#	
% )
" )$(88(7	"$'!	 7
() )+$($!" .
	#$-!	"
$ )	"+" *+"
)	 

 &#)% "
(	 #)$-)
"	"+"*+"
)	 

>(A(!#%E(")	()
"+",-.".1!"	 %1	#	&#
'()1	(		!#)
 	 #)$	#&8#$ )+$	%#"	 ) ,!	 #):>(A()
>.A#%	"+"*+"
)	D#-8
.$(	 $% 
($#%	
(	#%	 $=		" %	&8#$ )+D"	# #!!-"#)	
(	#%	 $=		"(!#%E(")	()
"+",-.".1(!F)#D8
+$()
(+"$	(	($#%	
(	#% 	 $=		"3	#	G)#D8
+#%E(")	3)#7)	3
78#'
)	3! "!-
$	()!3!()+3%%!	#"#!!-"")!($ #!!-""
	(	D#-8
!(-$()1#%	!#)
 	 #)$	#&8#$ )+$	%#"	 ),!	 #):>(A3>.A()
>
A#%	"+" *+"
)		#)#	.$(	 $% 
 %	&8#$ )+D"	##!!-"#)	
(	#%	 $=		"3()
(!#%E(")	()
"+" ,-.(+")#		#($$"		(	>A()1#%$-!!#)
 	 #)$(")#	$(	 $% 
(		&8#$ )+#">1A	E(")	"
 )(	 #) H $)#	'(1(.83 )(!!($#%$-.!8(-$>A()
>1A3($("$-8	#%()17)	$3
78#'
)	$3! "!-
$	()!$3 !()+$3%%!	$#"#!!-"")!$#%D ! 	(
G)#D8
+($#%	
(	#%	 $=		" 

>.A&#
'()1".1!"	 % $	#E(")	()
"+",-.	(		!#)
 	 #)$	#&8#$ )+$	%#"	 ),!	 #):>(A3>.A ()
>
A#%	"+"*+"
)	D#-8
.$(	 $% 
($#%	
(	#%	 $=		" %	&8#$ )+D"	##!!-"#)	 
(	#%	 $=		"&#
'()1".1(!F)#D8
+$()
(+"$	(	($#%	
(	#%	 $=		"3	#	G)#D8
+ #%	&#
'()13)#7)	3
78#'
)	3! "!-
$	()!3!()+3%%!	#"#!!-"")!($#!!-""
	(	D#-8
!(-$ ()1#%	!#)
 	 #)$	#&8#$ )+$	%#"	 ),!	 #):>(A#",!	 #):>.A#%	"+"*+"
)		#)#	. $(	 $% 
 %	&8#$ )+D"	##!!-"#)	
(	#%	 $=		"3()
	&#
'()1(+"$)#		#($$"		(	()1#%$-! !#)
 	 #)$(")#	$(	 $% 
(		&8#$ )+($("$-8	#%()17)	$3
78#'
)	$3! "!-
$	()!$3!()+$3%%!	$#" #!!-"")!$#%D ! 	(
G)#D8
+($#%	
(	#%	 $=		" 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/21/2023 OSCAR NO 609221 | PAGE Page 27 PUBLIC of 35 *-PUBLIC 
 	

				 

	
	

		 
				 		
!"#					##$%&'	#"( )*+		
,- .
/	(	(		!
 			 
					
			
		
 0	1	

 		
 

	
	

		 
				 		

	2333					
.!"# 	!"#			 

	(		!


		 
	

 

	!4#
!4#			(
(	 	
 5
6
 


	(		!


		 
	
 

	!4#
			
7		
8 	(8	9
			
8
:	


( 7		
:	


	7			( 8	9
		(



(	 5
6
	5
!
(
(
(	
8 
3#
	. 
/	 

	
		!

		 
	


 	!4			(
(	

( 	


 		;

.

	;


		

/	(		 	

			
 	(		

/	(	
	

 

	;

	8 




			
	
	;

 
	 	;	
(			
	

 	



			

	
 

 /	 



FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/21/2023 OSCAR NO 609221 | PAGE Page 28 PUBLIC of 35 *-PUBLIC 
	



	
	

		
	

	
 	
	 
		! "	 !
	
!	
 
	#$	
"	 !
"	 	
	%

 	
!	"	 !
"	 	
	%
	
 &	'#(()		
		)!		

		


	
"	
 

&!			)"	 !

	
	

	
	 

* 
	
+
,
	)

* 
	
+)!!
	 	
-$	 
&()#$)
	 '$)###)###)###	 '$)##)###)###
! .)#$)
	 '$)##)###)###	'/)##)###)### 





	
	

	
	
	!'$)###)###)###	 

* 
	
+)	!!
		
-$	 
 	
 !	
	 
"	 !
 

 



	
	

	
	
	!
!		
	

 * 
	
+
&	'$)###)###)###	&
	!!
		
-$	  
&	"	 !
	
!
	
)
		


  
)			0)	
"	 !
	 	

1	!	 	0"	 !
!	& 	 	
		
	
	"	
	
	
2.
	
2.	 
	 )	



	
	  
 	0 

3 	

)
"	 !

	
	

	
1 
	% 	
		
	
4.	"	 !
5	0 

$  	
 *
)	 
6	.-)#$)


!	 "	 !
.##7	!			! 
	 	"	 !

		
	  	
		


	
"	 !

		
 ! 
		 

	

	!
	&
 

 "	 !
	


	)	
	 
)

 	
!	'#)###)###	 	.8 	
!	

5 $.)#$
5 $.)#/	
 	
!	 '##)###)###
 
1
$#		
	
	
1*	&
 ! 
!
	
	
		

'#)###)###
 	
.8 	
!	)

!
	"	 !


$#		
	
	 .8 	
!	9
	
)
%
	9 	


&	0 

$

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/21/2023 OSCAR NO 609221 | PAGE Page 29 PUBLIC of 35 *-PUBLIC 
	


	
	




	

		

		
 



		






	
	

	
 
	





	

	

	




	 	
	
	
 !	

	
	


	
	



 


	


		
	


		
	 		

	
	
	
	
	



		
	
 	
 

" 
		
 !




		


	#
	$

	
 

	
	

	
	
	
	
		
	
!	
	% 
	

#
	& $
	
 

' %

%	(
 #




)




	
			
	
 	*
)

		
*
)



		

	
 

+ 

	 #
	, $& $& "	& '	

-.
	





)

/012134 /0125634

	 

789/23569:;<=2>93519513;52??@?9<1A?25BCD "

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/21/2023 OSCAR NO 609221 | PAGE Page 30 PUBLIC of 35 *-PUBLIC 
	





	


	
	
	


		 
 

 !""#$%  

!&''#	()  
*&#	()  & +	 

,#-## !&''

 


  
*&

 


   & 
	*


+	  

 .#/+,+#/+#0!  

!&''(#$	  
*&(#$	   & 	


	
		

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/21/2023 OSCAR NO 609221 | PAGE Page 31 PUBLIC of 35 *-PUBLIC 
EXHIBIT J 

 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/21/2023 OSCAR NO 609221 | PAGE Page 32 PUBLIC of 35 *-PUBLIC 
	


	








 
 

!"#$%&'()*+,-.,/)01,233*45 6789:;<7=>?;;@A BCAD=ADEEF:9= G"H"IJK$L"%LH" M


  N

OPQ 

R
PQ
 RS T 

 P
Q UCDV6W7=> X
YF@@F< XZ





S 

 
  PS P [ Z
 \]\^_
 

UCDV6W7=> X


	 	

`

 




a]bac



	



 


 Q	


	 
d






	
	
ZP
 

e Q

S






 


  N

 bNbZfg XP


chi]PZjkal\]\^jmnopqM	 
r	


 



 tus
 muv
 ttxw y
 z

{F9|=W7}}<>D=|}>D;;A9798 _




	 ~F879 6789:; FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/21/2023 OSCAR NO 609221 | PAGE Page 33 PUBLIC of 35 *-PUBLIC 
PUBLIC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 21, 2023, I filed the foregoing document electronically using 

the FTC’s E-Filing System, which will send notification of such filing to: 

April Tabor 

 Secretary

Federal Trade Commission

 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. H-113 

 Washington, DC 20580 

 ElectronicFilings@ftc.gov 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell

 Administrative Law Judge 

 Federal Trade Commission

 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. H-110 

 Washington, DC 20580 

I also certify that I caused the foregoing document to be served via email to: 

Beth Wilkinson

Rakesh Kilaru

Alysha Bohanon 

Anastasia Pastan

Grace Hill

Sarah Neuman

Kieran Gostin

Wilkinson Stekloff LLP

2001 M Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20036 

(202) 847-4010 

bwilkinson@wilkinsonstekloff.com

rkilaru@wilkinsonstekloff.com

abohanon@wilkinsonstekloff.com 

apastan@wilkinsonstekloff.com 

ghill@wilkinsonstekloff.com 

sneuman@wilkinsonstekloff.com 

kgostin@wilkinsonstekloff.com 

Mike Moiseyev

Megan Granger

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

2001 M Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20036 

(202) 682-7235 

michael.moiseyev@weil.com 

Steven Sunshine

Julia K. York 

Jessica R.Watters

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

1440 New York Ave, NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 371-7860 

steve.sunshine@skadden.com 

julia.york@skadden.com 

jessica.watters@skadden.com 

Maria Raptis

Matthew M. Martino 

Michael Sheerin

Evan R. Kreiner 

Bradley J. Pierson

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP 

One Manhattan West 

New York, NY 10001 

(212) 735-2425 

maria.raptis@skadden.com 

matthew.martino@skadden.com 

michael.sheerin@skadden.com 

evan.kreiner@skadden.com 

bradley.pierson@skadden.com 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/21/2023 OSCAR NO 609221 | PAGE Page 34 of 35 *-PUBLIC 
PUBLIC

megan.granger@weil.com 

Counsel for Microsoft Corporation 

Counsel for Activision Blizzard, Inc.

By: s/ James H. Weingarten 

 James H. Weingarten

 Counsel Supporting the Complaint 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 12/21/2023 OSCAR NO 609221 | PAGE Page 35 of 35 *-PUBLIC