Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01619/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01619-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FABRIENNE ENGLISH, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

APPLE INC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-01619-WHO 

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD 

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND 

PARTIES’ JOINT STATEMENT ON 

DISCOVERY DISPUTE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 129, 136

This order concerns plaintiffs’ February 3, 2015 motion for leave to file a third amended 

complaint, and the parties’ February 17, 2015 joint statement regarding certain of plaintiffs’

requests for production.

Although plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on January 17, 2015, plaintiffs 

again seek leave to amend their complaint “to refine an existing subclass and to add a subclass,” 

“to clarify [their] factual allegations,” and “to remove extraneous language and to re-letter 

exhibits.” Dkt. No. 129 at 3. The amendments do not add or remove any causes of action. 

Plaintiffs state that the amendments are primarily aimed at addressing arguments defendants have 

raised in response to plaintiffs’ discovery requests. See, e.g., id. at 5-6. Defendants filed a 

response stating that they do not oppose the motion but expressing “concern[s] about the 

inefficiency and resulting burden caused by the manner in which plaintiffs have been litigating this 

case.” Dkt. No. 135.

As plaintiffs moved to amend by the February 3, 2015 deadline for amendment and 

defendants do not oppose amendment, plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are advised that 

the February 3, 2015 cutoff will remain in effect and that additional amendment of the complaint 

will not be allowed. Plaintiffs shall file their third amended complaint on or before March 6, 

2015. Defendants shall have 30 days from the date the third amended complaint is filed to 

Case 3:14-cv-01619-WHO Document 138 Filed 03/02/15 Page 1 of 4
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

respond. The hearing on plaintiffs’ motion set for March 11, 2015 is VACATED. 

Next, in the parties’ joint statement, plaintiffs assert that defendants have “improperly 

refused” to produce documents responsive to various of plaintiffs’ requests for production. Dkt. 

No. 136 at 1. Plaintiffs identify the following categories of disputed documents:

• “training manuals and materials . . . for the sale of new and used and 

refurbished class devices including iPhones.”

• marketing materials, and in particular materials relating to the marketing 

of AC+ since 2009.

• documents “summarizing Apple’s process used to recycle and/or 

remanufacture class devices that Apple also calls service units and 

refurbished devices.”

• annual and quarterly sales reports relating to “Apple’s number of sales in 

the United States of: (a) new devices which are or have been covered or 

potentially covered by APP or AC+; (b) used devices . . . ; and (c) 

refurbished devices.”

• “examples of the packaging which service units or replacement units come 

in.”

• documents relating to sales data for APP and AC+.

• “complaints by customers about the service plans / use of used parts and 

devices”

• documents “summarizing Apple’s process used to track consumer 

purchases of used and refurbished . . . class devices and sales of extended 

warranties / service plans, and when it began selling / providing such 

devices.”

• documents “regarding the basic one-year warranty that comes with Apple 

products.”

• documents “summarizing Apple’s processes for testing class devices 

equipment under APP, AC+, and one-year limited warranties, including 

but not limited to the names of the testing equipment, what each piece of 

equipment tests for, and how the equipment works.”

• “summary documents” relating to Apple’s policies regarding the “process 

of generating service requests in store.”

• documents relating to Apple’s training program regarding the sale of class 

devices, “from the inception of AppleCare and AppleCare+ to the 

Case 3:14-cv-01619-WHO Document 138 Filed 03/02/15 Page 2 of 4
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

present.”

• documents regarding any contracts or communications with entities that 

are manufacturing or supplying or installing parts / units for Apple’s 

service devices.

• documents regarding whether sales persons train for, are given, or have 

received certifications as to selling class devices.

• documents relating to the sales of service plans over the phone.

• documents explaining or defining the meaning of “refurbished” and 

“service devices.”

• emails between Apple personnel concerning the terms of the service plans, 

use of refurbished or used or secondhand parts in conjunction with

replacement and repairs, and policies as to employees being instructed

what to say about the service devices.

• transcripts or recordings of English, Lowthert, Galindo, or Adkins.

Defendants respond that many of the requests for production highlighted by plaintiffs are 

not actually in dispute, and that defendants are continuing to work to search for, review, and 

produce responsive documents. Id. at 3. Defendants also raise the following objections to 

plaintiffs’ requests:

• Plaintiffs request documents relating to all new class devices sold by 

Apple since 2009, but plaintiffs’ claims are limited to Apple’s APP and 

AC+ plans. Defendants object that these requests are “overbroad and 

unduly burdensome.”

• Plaintiffs seek “examples of the packaging which service units or 

replacement units come in,” but it is undisputed that replacement devices 

are given to customers in “plain white boxes.” 

• Plaintiffs seek documents relating to Apple’s one-year limited warranty, 

but plaintiffs’ claims do not concern Apple’s one-year limited warranty.

• Plaintiffs seek “highly confidential and sensitive documents” regarding the 

manufacture and testing of replacement devices. Defendants state that 

such requests are unduly detailed for class certification and offer to 

produce “nonprivileged documents sufficient to describe the process used 

to create and test replacement iPhones provided under APP and or AC+ or 

alternatively to respond to a narrowly tailored interrogatory on the 

subject.”

• Plaintiffs request documents relating to the “pricing strategy” for APP and 

Case 3:14-cv-01619-WHO Document 138 Filed 03/02/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

AC+. Defendants state such documents are not relevant to class 

certification and offer to produce documents showing the pricing of APP 

and AC+ and the pricing of repairs and replacements under APP and AC+.

• Plaintiffs request training materials relating to the technical aspects of 

diagnosing class devices in need of service; such documents are not 

relevant to class certification.

• Plaintiffs request documents relating to purchases of APP and AC+ over 

the internet or telephone, but no class representative purchased APP or 

AC+ over the internet or telephone. 

• Plaintiffs seek job performance reviews of the retail store employees to be 

deposed. Defendants object that this invades the employees’ privacy 

interests and offer to produce redacted versions of any performance 

reviews that contain feedback on the sale of APP, AC+, or repairs or 

replacements provided under either plan.

I accept defendants’ characterization regarding matters that have been resolved in the meet 

and confer process, and order that production occur in accordance with these agreements. See 

Dkt. No. 136 at 3 n.1. As for the remaining items, it appears that defendants’ objections are well 

taken. However, plaintiffs request “additional briefing to fully address the issues presented.” Id.

at 1. No later than noon (Pacific Standard Time) on March 9, 2015, plaintiffs may file a 

supplemental brief of no more than five pages, double spaced, that explains why any of the 

disputed discovery is necessary for plaintiffs’ class certification motion. Defendants shall not 

reply. After reviewing the supplemental briefing, I will determine if further briefing or a hearing 

is required.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2015

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01619-WHO Document 138 Filed 03/02/15 Page 4 of 4