Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05152/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05152-27/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and particular circumstances underlying

the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

IN RE APPLE AND AT&TM

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

__________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C-07-05152 JW (PVT)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO COMPEL

[Docket No. 276]

Plaintiffs Herbert H. Kliegerman, Paul Holman, Lucy Rivello, Timothy P. Smith,

Michael G. Lee, Dennis V. Macasaddu, Mark G. Morikawa, Vincent Scotti and Scott Sesso

renew their motion to compel documents, including additional source code for Version 1.1.1 of

the iPhone operating system and other internal documents. (collectively “plaintiffs”). Defendant

Apple, Inc. opposes the motion. (“Apple” or “defendant”). On March 23, 2010, the parties

appeared for hearing. Having reviewed the papers and considered the arguments of counsel,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion is denied.1

After plaintiffs previously moved to compel (and prior to the scheduled hearing on the

motion), the parties agreed, inter alia, that defendant Apple would produce tailored portions of

Case 5:07-cv-05152-JW Document 383 Filed 03/26/10 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER, page 2

its source code for plaintiffs’ expert to determine “how the code functions in terms of bricking

phones and which phones are bricked by the code” and that plaintiffs would withdraw their

motion. Mot. at 2. 

Following a review of the tailored portions of the source code produced by defendant

Apple, plaintiffs’ expert requested that additional portions of the source code be produced as

well. See, e.g., Declaration of Rachele R. Rickert in Support of Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for

an Order Compelling Apple to Produce Documents, including iPhone Source Code, Exh. F. 

(“Rickert Decl.”). Defendant Apple produced the additional portions of source code sought by

plaintiffs’ expert on January 21, 2010, the day before plaintiffs’ opening brief on the motion for

class certification was due. (“January 21, 2010 production”).

Because of defendant Apple’s alleged discovery abuses and dilatory conduct, plaintiffs

now seek production of more additional source code (except for source code that deals

exclusively with iPhone components including the calculator, clock, calendar, camera, compass,

contacts, mail, maps, message, notes, photos, Safari, stocks, text messaging, voice memos,

weather, YouTube, iPod, iTunes and Bluetooth). Plaintiffs seek an order to compel the

production of additional source code within 5 days of the date of the hearing. 

Defendant Apple states that the additional discovery sought is nearly the entirety of the

source code. Defendant Apple also states that all additional portions of the source code sought

by plaintiffs’ expert were provided (per the parties’ agreed-upon protocol) for his review on

January 21, 2010. Additional portions of the source code produced for review, included, but was

not limited to, the Core Telephony library and certain related routines. Rather than undertaking

a thorough review of the source code provided, defendant Apple notes that plaintiffs’ expert has

made little to no effort to review the additional source code previously provided to him. 

Specifically, plaintiffs’ expert reviewed the source code for a “mere eleven days” from

December 11, 2009 to January 11, 2010. Opp. at 10. And he has made no effort whatsoever to

review the additional portions of source code (which he requested) from the January 21, 2010

production. 

Defendant Apple further states that plaintiffs have not shown that still more additional

Case 5:07-cv-05152-JW Document 383 Filed 03/26/10 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER, page 3

source code is relevant and necessary for the class certification motion. Indeed, defendant Apple

states that discovery has shown that “none of the named plaintiffs was injured by version 1.1.1 as

they had claimed in the [Revised Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint].” Opp. at 6. 

And “plaintiffs’ false allegations concerning version 1.1.1 [may] mean the plaintiffs do not have

standing.” Id.

With respect to the ARM chip, defendant Apple points out that plaintiffs only speculate

that Version 1.1.1 caused iPhones that had downloaded unauthorized third party applications to

“brick.” Defendant Apple argues that mere claims of “jailbreaking” alone do not warrant

production of the source code. With respect to the baseband chip, defendant Apple states that

plaintiffs merely speculate that “layers of the operating system [] likely [] contain relevant code.” 

Mot. at 7. Defendant Apple argues that it should not be compelled to produce source code where

plaintiffs “proclaim that it is potentially somehow implicated in plaintiffs’ claims.” Opp. at 16. 

Here, “[i]t is undisputed that Apple’s iPhone OS 1.1.1 source code is a highly

confidential, proprietary, and trade secret business asset, of enormous commercial value.” Opp.

at 11, fn. 8. See, Declaration of Sadik Huseny in Support of Apple, Inc’s Opposition to

Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for an Order Compelling Apple to Produce Documents, including

iPhone Source Code, ¶ 36, Exh. S (Declaration of John Wright, Director, Platform Technologies

at defendant Apple). (“Huseny Decl.”). Because the iPhone source code is a trade secret,

plaintiffs have the burden to establish that it is both relevant and necessary. Hartley Pen Co. v.

United States District Court, 287 F. 2d 324, 328 (9th Cir. 1961)(“A trade secret must and should

be disclosed where upon a proper showing it is made to appear that such disclosure is relevant

and necessary to the proper presentation of a plaintiff’s or defendant’s case.”). See also,

Synopsys v. Nassda Corp., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27668, at *3. And since the court bifurcated

class certification and merits discovery, plaintiffs must also establish the relevance of the

additional source code sought to class certification. See Docket No. 164. 

Plaintiffs state that the additional source code sought will enable them “to demonstrate to

the court that certification of the proposed class is appropriate because common issues of fact

and law predominate with regard to plaintiffs’ Sherman Act, computer fraud and computer

Case 5:07-cv-05152-JW Document 383 Filed 03/26/10 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 2 In light of the above ruling, the court does not reach the issue of whether plaintiffs’

motion is timely. In the source code stipulation dated December 11, 2009, the parties agreed,

inter alia, that “[a]ny motions pertaining to outstanding discovery disputed related to iPhone

source code or Plaintiffs’ production of documents shall be due on Monday, December 28,

2009.” (“Source Code Stipulation”). The instant motion was filed on or about February 16,

2010. Plaintiffs do not indicate whether they made any effort to extend the above-specified

deadline. 

ORDER, page 4

trespass claims.” Mot. at 12. Plaintiffs note that the following factual issues are of critical

importance to the pending motion for class certification: (1) whether Version 1.1.1 was identical

on all iPhones (including iPhones that were upgraded from an earlier operating system as well as

those shipped with Version 1.1.1 installed); (2) whether Version 1.1.1 worked the same on all

iPhones; (3) whether Version 1.1.1 caused any jailbroken or unlocked iPhone to brick when its

owner attempted to download Version 1.1.1; (4) whether Version 1.1.1 caused jailbroken or

unlocked iPhones to “brick” by common means or by means that affected only some of the

iPhones; and (5) which categories of iPhones were bricked by Version 1.1.1.

Based on the above, plaintiffs have not met their burden and have not established that the

additional source code sought is relevant and necessary. Plaintiffs only speculate that the

additional source code may be relevant. See, e.g., Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.,

253 F.R.D. 256, 260 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)(sufficient showing required for disclosure of source code). 

At this juncture, some (if not all) of plaintiffs’ assertions appear to based on mere “belief.” See,

e.g., Mot. at 1. (“believed to be the software that interfaces between iTunes and the iPhone”).

Finally, plaintiffs’ expert has made no effort whatsoever to review the additional source

code, which was produced on January 21, 2010. Indeed, plaintiffs renewed their motion to

compel additional source code before the entirety of the January 21, 2010 production was

reviewed. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ renewed motion to compel is denied.2

 Notwithstanding the

above, plaintiffs may renew their motion to compel during merits discovery phase, if warranted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to compel internal documentation,

including but not limited to, documentation on data structures, theory of operations manuals,

“man” pages, introductory comments for newly hired programmers to read and Application

Program Interface (“API”) reference manuals is denied. See, Mot. at 1-2, 10 (other specified

source code names under seal). As discussed above, plaintiffs have not shown relevance and 

Case 5:07-cv-05152-JW Document 383 Filed 03/26/10 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER, page 5

necessity. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26, 2010

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:07-cv-05152-JW Document 383 Filed 03/26/10 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER, page 6

Case 5:07-cv-05152-JW Document 383 Filed 03/26/10 Page 6 of 6