Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01619/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01619-14/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,

Plaintiff,

v.

APPLE INC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-01619-WHO 

FURTHER RULINGS REGARDING 

DISCOVERY DISPUTE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 149, 152, 153

On April 10, 2015, I held a telephonic hearing to discuss the parties’ latest discovery 

disputes. Yesterday I posted a Tentative Ruling Regarding Discovery Dispute. Dkt. No. 154. 

The tentative is essentially repeated below as part of the final order on this dispute, with new 

sections II, III and IV concerning the additional matters discussed today. 

A central dispute between the parties is whether discovery may encompass the APP plan as 

well as the AC+ plan. Apple argues that the sole remaining class representative only purchased 

the AC+ plan, that the APP plan primarily covers computers and is a parts-based, rather than 

whole unit replacement, plan, that the class representative’s claim is for accidental damage which 

would not be covered by the APP plan, and that she relies only on oral misrepresentations for her 

claims. While Apple’s arguments to limit this case may have force when it opposes a motion for 

class certification, they are not persuasive in the context of this discovery dispute. 

I. EFFECT OF NAMED PLAINTIFF WITHDRAWING

In discovery disputes before class certification, “[t]he plaintiff has the burden to either 

make a prima facie showing that the Rule 23 class action requirements are satisfied, or to show 

that discovery is likely to produce substantiation of the class allegations.” Willner v. Manpower, 

Inc., No. C 11-2846 JSW MEJ, 2012 WL 4902994, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2012) (internal 

citations and quotations omitted). 

Case 3:14-cv-01619-WHO Document 156 Filed 04/10/15 Page 1 of 6
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

In determining whether products are substantially similar so as to allow a named plaintiff 

to represent a class of consumers of a product he or she did not buy, I have concluded in another 

case that:

Recognizing the varying analyses in this District regarding 

substantially similar products in class actions at the pleading stage, I 

conclude that the best approach is one which focuses on whether the 

type of claim and consumer injury is substantially similar as 

between the purchased and unpurchased products. That 

determination necessarily focuses on whether the resolution of the 

asserted claims will be identical between the purchased and 

unpurchased products. For example, a claim that products are 

illegally mislabeled as a matter of law because the labels fail to 

disclose something required by a statute or regulation can be 

resolved without a context-specific analysis of each product's label. 

The label is either illegal or it is not. That the products bearing the 

challenged label may be different—or that the labels themselves are 

different in other respects—is immaterial to the determination of 

whether the label is in fact illegal.

Ang v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., No. 13-CV-01196-WHO, 2014 WL 1024182, at *8 (N.D. Cal. 

Mar. 13, 2014). Products may be substantially similar “where differences between the purchased 

products and the unpurchased products do not matter because the legal claim and injury to the 

consumer is the same, and where both the legal claims/injury are similar and the products 

themselves are similar.” Id. at *5. The “point of the substantially similar approach” was to 

“ensure that the plaintiff is seeking to represent only those individuals who have suffered 

essentially the same injury as the plaintiff.” Id. at *6. 

Ogden v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC discussed this issue in the context of discovery, 

ultimately concluding that most of the products were not substantially similar. 292 F.R.D. 620, 

626 (N.D. Cal. 2013). However, unlike in this case, Ogden found that “here not all of the labels 

bear one similar claim on which all consumers could have relied” and that the “claims are not 

limited to a particular advertisement on the products [plaintiff] bought that also were included on 

other products as was the situation in the cases she cites.” Id.

In this case, the crux of the plaintiffs’ TAC, or at least of several claims in the TAC,

involve alleged misrepresentations in both the AC+ plan and the APP plan. Essentially, the 

plaintiffs suffer injury because they receive refurbished parts or devices under the plan that are of 

lesser quality than new parts or devices, even though they believe that they are receiving new 

Case 3:14-cv-01619-WHO Document 156 Filed 04/10/15 Page 2 of 6
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

ones. The relevant language in both plans is identical, and the misrepresentation and injury 

appears the same. The plaintiffs have made a prima facie showing of typicality and that discovery 

would help substantiate the class allegations. It appears that discovery is at least merited as to 

both plans, and any doubts should be resolved at the class certification stage. See Astiana v. 

Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream, Inc., No. C-11-2910 EMC, 2012 WL 2990766, at *13 (N.D. Cal. July 

20, 2012) (“Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient similarity between the products they did purchase 

and those that they did not; any concerns of DGIC and/or the Court about material differences are 

better addressed at the class certification stage rather than at the 12(b)(6) stage.”). 

II. NO EXPANSION TO DEVICES OTHER THAN IPHONES 

During the hearing, plaintiffs’ counsel asked that Apple be required to provide the 

requested discovery on iPads and iPods as well as iPhones. Apple objected, pointing out that the 

named plaintiff only raised issues with her iPhone; that Apple’s other products are significantly 

different than iPhones in terms of repair and replacement; that the burden of providing discovery 

on the additional products would be enormous; and that manageability and typicality, at least, 

would be raised if the other devices were included. I agree on all counts, and limit discovery to 

iPhones.

III.CALL CENTERS AND INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS

Plaintiffs’ counsel also asked that Apple produce information that was generally applicable 

to independent contractors and others responding to calls related to the provision of replacement 

devices, as opposed to just Apple employees. Apple should produce such generally applicable 

materials, but need not produce specific information related to individual independent contractors.

IV. SCHEDULING

Apple has agreed to use its best efforts to produce all documents and to respond to the 

interrogatories propounded recently by plaintiffs by April 24, 2015. It is scheduling depositions 

of its witnesses during the week of May 4, 2015, and will tie down the date for the deposition of 

the currently vacationing witness as soon as practicable. 

Case 3:14-cv-01619-WHO Document 156 Filed 04/10/15 Page 3 of 6
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

V. DISPUTES REGARDING SPECIFIC DEPOSITION TOPICS: 

Topic 1: The changes to terms made resulting in different versions of the AppleCare Protection

Plan and AppleCare Plus warranties, including the dates on which a change was made, and the

date on which the new version and its terms became effective.

Apple has offered a witness, and my decision to allow discovery on the APP plan resolves

this issue. 

Topic 2: The criteria which are used by Apple store employees and Apple, Inc. as Administrator 

of the AppleCare Protection Plan and AppleCare Plus warranty plans, to determine whether to 

offer a new replacement unit or refurbished or service unit (previously used or reconditioned) unit 

(including but not limited to iPhones, iPads, laptops and all other devices which may be

purchased with AppleCare Protection Plan and AppleCare Plus) for Covered Equipment to a

customer making a warranty claim under the AppleCare Protection Plan or AppleCare Plus

warranty, and the life cycle of those units and parts that are turned into APPLE.

Apple objects to the wording of the topic. However, it has agreed to produce a witness to 

explain its practices regarding the provision of replacement devices, and that witness can explain 

why plaintiffs’ wording is inaccurate.

Topics 3 and 4: 3) The use of (application in practice) and definitions of the word “refurbished” 

and “service unit” used by Apple, Inc. as Administrator of the AppleCare Protection Plan and 

AppleCare Plus warranty, with respect to units (including but not limited to iPhones, iPads, 

laptops and all other devices which may be purchased with AppleCare Protection Plan and 

AppleCare Plus) that are provided to customers in response to claims for Covered Equipment 

under the AppleCare Protection and/or AppleCare Plus warranty programs, and 4) The use of 

(application in practice) and definitions of the terms “functionally equivalent to the original 

product” and “equivalent to new in terms of performance and reliability” used by Apple, Inc. as 

Administrator of the AppleCare Protection Plan and AppleCare Plus warranties, with respect to 

units (including but not limited to iPhones, iPads, laptops and all other devices which may be 

purchased with AppleCare Protection Plan and AppleCare Plus) that are provided to customers in 

response to claims for Covered Equipment under the AppleCare Protection Plan and/or AppleCare 

Plus warranty programs. 

There is no actual dispute – Apple agreed to produce a witness. 

Topics 8 and 9: 8) The total number of people in the United States who purchased either 

AppleCare or AppleCare Plus Protection Plan warranty, who purchased Apple Care Plus 

Protection Plan warranty on a date subsequent to the original purchase of the iPhone, who 

purchased Apple Care Plus Protection Plan who did not purchase the iPhone directly from Apple, 

and who purchased Apple Care Plus Protection Plan contemporaneously with the first coverage 

for accidental damage thus resulting in the person only having one remaining incident left, and 9) 

The total number of warranty claims for each device by model and year made under AppleCare 

Protection Plan and AppleCare Plus warranties for the Relevant Time Period for which 

Case 3:14-cv-01619-WHO Document 156 Filed 04/10/15 Page 4 of 6
5

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

refurbished units or service units or parts were provided under the terms of the warranty in 

satisfaction of a claim for Covered Equipment, broken down by type of unit / device. 

Apple argues that these are improper matters for testimony under 30(b)(6), and that it will 

answer these questions in interrogatories. Plaintiffs indicate that if Apple provides the answers 

before the time for depositions it will accept answers via interrogatory. This should be answered 

via interrogatory response pursuant to the schedule described above. 

Topics 14 and 22: 14) The process by which warranty claims for Covered Equipment under the 

AppleCare Protection Plan and AppleCare Plus warranty plans are evaluated, including criteria 

used, sequence of events, and persons or entities involved in decision-making as to claims, and 22) 

The criteria by which decisions are made to offer parts replacement as opposed to a new device or 

warranty replacement device, where the issue is a cracked screen on an iPhone or similar 

component-based issue on an iPhone or other Class Device.

With topics 14 and 22, the parties disagree whether it is sufficient to have an Apple witness 

testify about the process to evaluate warranty claims in the retail store and the criteria to evaluate 

warranty claims. Plaintiffs argue that there might be some kind of appeal and that someone with 

knowledge of the more general corporate plan, and not only a retail employee, should be deposed. 

However, there is no evidence that there is any kind of appeal process or that a retail employee 

would be insufficient. Apple’s proffered witness is adequate. 

Topic 19: The process(es) employed and databases used for keeping track of used or refurbished 

units (e.g., as to notations as to serial numbers and/or association with sales or warranty claims) 

once sold or provided through warranty claims to customers.

Both parties agree that the only question is whether Apple is able to track the type of 

replacement devices and not how it tracks them. Again, Apple states that an interrogatory would 

be the more appropriate method of obtaining this information. I agree, and Apple should respond 

pursuant to the schedule described above. 

Topic 20: The differences in processing of claims and directing of Apple consumers calling Apple 

with complaints or claims (i.e., differences between treatment of claims under each warranty as 

the others), with respect to complaints or claims made as to a) AppleCare Protection Plan; (b) 

AppleCare+; c) Non-Warranty service; d) One-Year Limited Warranty service; and e) 90-day 

Complimentary Support.

Case 3:14-cv-01619-WHO Document 156 Filed 04/10/15 Page 5 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Apple objects to this as far as it relates to the one-year limited warranty and non-warranty 

services. I have already limited discovery relating to the warranties not at issue (like the one-year 

warranty) in the March 24, 2015 Order, and I sustain Apple’s objection. 

Topics 21 and 23: 21) The complaint department and call centers and subcontracted call center 

employees as to their processes for handling complaints by customers as to warranty claims, and 

handling of complaints as to refurbished and/or service units and/or used Class Devices and parts, 

and also handling of Complaints of service units that are devices sold as new, and complaints of 

loss of incidences in the AppleCare+ extended warranty or two incidences not being provided, and 

23) The training of the employees who staff call centers, retail centers and stores, refurbishment 

and repair facilities, at home advisors, and are employed by subcontractors/temporary agencies.

Apple objects to the breadth of these topics, and to the discovery relating to a call center. 

Apple should provide a witness who can speak to the process for handling complaints by 

customers about warranty claims. Handling complaints concerning non-warranty claims is not 

relevant, nor is training except with respect to handling complaints regarding the warranty claims. 

Topic 18: The marketing of service plans and warranties in Apple stores and on the internet.

Apple will provide a witness for deposition. 

Dated: April 10, 2015

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01619-WHO Document 156 Filed 04/10/15 Page 6 of 6