Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03824/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03824-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 15:2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

URIEL MARCUS, BENEDICT

VERCELES, and Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

APPLE INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 14-03824 WHA

ORDER RE DISCOVERY

ON SAFETY ISSUE

AND RE PENDING

MOTIONS TO DISMISS

The main new allegation in the proposed amended complaint is the safety allegation. 

The Court is concerned that this new theory is an afterthought, never having been previously

raised. Having considered what counsel say discovery will establish on the safety issue as it

relates to disclosures in the operating manuals, the Court believes that discovery limited to that

issue, to be followed by summary judgment submissions thereon, will be the best way to address

the new safety allegation. This procedure will convert this aspect of the proceedings to partial

summary judgment mode, but Rule 12 shall continue to apply to the rest. 

Depending on what the discovery shows, the Court will rule on the hybrid Rule 12-

Rule 56 motion in a few weeks, after the following discovery and submissions are done. 

Meanwhile, the following short summary may assist counsel in appreciating the Court’s

thinking. As to the CLRA claim, the Court leans toward the view that a claim is stated if the

consumer uses the item in conformity with the operating manual but nevertheless incurs an

undue risk of safety hazard, meaning an undisclosed risk of serious bodily injury. On the other

Case 3:14-cv-03824-WHA Document 67 Filed 03/16/15 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

hand, if the operating manual warned of the safety hazards and how to avoid them, then there can

be no CLRA violation. 

As to the Song-Beverly Act, if consumer adherence to the instructions and warnings in

the operating manual would eliminate an undue safety hazard, then there is no limited warranty

problem insofar as safety is concerned. On the other hand, if consumer adherence to the

instructions and warnings would not eliminate a serious safety risk and the serious safety risk

renders the unit unfit for use, then there is a defect. 

Plaintiffs shall produce their operating manuals and all paperwork that came with their

units, including receipts at least forty hours before their depositions. They shall each then sit, in

this district (having sued here), for up to ninety minutes of deposition questioning by Apple, to

be followed by up to thirty minutes of plaintiff’s counsel, to be followed by up to however much

is reserved for re-direct by Apple’s counsel from the ninety minutes. The depositions shall be

completed by MARCH 31. 

By MARCH 25, Apple shall supply a declaration with exhibits from a person with

personal knowledge as to the specific operating manuals and other warnings packaged with the

units sold to plaintiffs, stating with particularity the basis for their knowledge. This will

necessarily have to rely on Apple’s records and business practices and counsel must take care to

comply with the rules of evidence. Avoid generalities and hearsay. Supply foundation. No later

than APRIL 3, the declarant(s) must sit for a deposition with the same time allotments as above

(ninety plus thirty minutes, etc.). 

By APRIL 8, both sides shall submit a joint appendix of evidence taken in this manner,

including the declaration and documents, and shall simultaneously submit separate memoranda

up to ten pages explaining the significance of the evidence. Either side may include, if

warranted, a Rule 56(d) motion. The issue of what warnings and manuals were supplied with the

paperwork for the units purchased by our two plaintiffs (and the extent to which it was read and

followed) is the only issue amenable and allowable for partial summary judgment at this time. 

Case 3:14-cv-03824-WHA Document 67 Filed 03/16/15 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

The foregoing limited discovery is without prejudice to further, later discovery from the

same individuals as the case moves along. This hybrid procedure is adopted pursuant to Rule 12

and the case management authority of the Court under Rule 16. Failure to comply with this

discovery may result in preclusion or adverse inference, among other things. Although the

opposing submissions today disagree as to what discovery will show, the Court is confident that

the witnesses will testify in accordance with their oaths.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2015. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:14-cv-03824-WHA Document 67 Filed 03/16/15 Page 3 of 3