Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-05404/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-05404-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:2 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

ZACK WARD, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

APPLE INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 12-cv-05404-YGR 

ORDER GRANTING RULE 56(d) MOTION 

AND DEFERRING RULING ON MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 78

On February 2, 2016, defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) moved for summary judgment on 

the issue of market definition. (Dkt. No. 78.) On February 16, 2016, plaintiffs filed a combined 

opposition brief and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) request seeking the opportunity to 

complete discovery relating to the motion before the Court rules thereon. (Dkt. No. 86.)

The Court notes that it has been fully within plaintiffs’ discretion to conduct independent 

investigations and build a factual record regarding their theory of the case even absent direct 

discovery from Apple in the more than three years since this case was filed. Nevertheless, out of 

an abundance of caution, the Court finds it prudent to evaluate the present motion on a more 

fulsome factual record to the extent plaintiffs are able to identify additional relevant facts in 

discovery. Thus, plaintiffs’ Rule 56(d) motion is GRANTED and the Court defers ruling on 

defendant’s pending motion for summary judgment to allow plaintiffs a measure of additional

time to conduct discovery related to the motion and the subject matter specifically identified in the 

Declaration of Rachele R. Rickert in Support of their Rule 56(d) Motion. (Dkt. No. 92 ¶¶ 41-60.) 

Apple may choose to conduct its own discovery relating to the motion during this time period, 

including depositions of the named plaintiffs.

Case 4:12-cv-05404-YGR Document 100 Filed 04/04/16 Page 1 of 2
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

Plaintiffs shall complete this additional discovery and file their new brief opposing Apple’s 

summary judgment motion by August 2, 2016, including a revised separate statement of material 

facts to the extent additional relevant evidence is submitted. Defendant’s reply is due fourteen 

(14) days after the opposition brief is filed. The Court shall set a further hearing date if necessary 

upon review of the additional briefing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 4, 2016

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:12-cv-05404-YGR Document 100 Filed 04/04/16 Page 2 of 2