1

Case Nos. 17-CV-00220-LHK (NC) & 17-MD-02773-LHK (NC)

ORDER GRANTING APPLE’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S NONDISPOSITIVE 

PRETRIAL ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK (NC) 

ORDER GRANTING APPLE’S 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER 

IMPOSING SANCTIONS

Re: Dkt. No. 445

IN RE: QUALCOMM ANTITRUST 

LITIGATION

Case No. 17-MD-02773-LHK (NC) 

Re: Dkt. No. 267

On October 11, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins ordered nonparty Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) to substantially complete its document production to Qualcomm Inc.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 550 Filed 02/07/18 Page 1 of 3
2

Case Nos. 17-CV-00220-LHK (NC) & 17-MD-02773-LHK (NC)

ORDER GRANTING APPLE’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S NONDISPOSITIVE 

PRETRIAL ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS

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

(“Qualcomm”) by December 15, 2017. ECF No. 223 at 1.1 On December 20, 2017, Judge 

Cousins sanctioned Apple $25,000 per day for failing to comply with the December 15, 2017 

deadline and continued the deadline to December 29, 2017. ECF No. 424 at 59:15-60:10. Judge 

Cousins memorialized this ruling in a written order issued on December 21, 2017. ECF No. 421 

at 2-3 (“sanctions order”).

On January 3, 2018, Apple filed a Motion for Relief from Magistrate Judge’s 

Nondispositive Pretrial Order Imposing Sanctions, ECF No. 445 (“Apple motion”). Qualcomm 

filed its response on January 26, 2018. ECF No. 516. On February 2, 2018, Apple filed its reply. 

ECF No. 533.

On January 31, 2018, Lawyers for Civil Justice filed a motion for leave to file a brief as 

amicus curiae. ECF No. 526-3. The Court granted the motion on February 2, 2018. ECF No. 

532. Qualcomm filed its response on February 7, 2018. ECF No. 547.

Based on the filings and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS Apple’s motion and 

sets aside the sanctions order.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) states that a Magistrate Judge’s nondispositive order 

must be set aside if it “is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” In the instant case, the source of 

authority for the sanctions order is unclear. The sanctions order itself cites former United States 

Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal’s sanction of Samsung for untimely document production to Apple 

in Apple v. Samsung, No. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG). ECF No. 421 at 3. However, Judge 

Grewal’s sanctions order was based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, which applies to 

parties such as Samsung in that case. Apple is not a party in the instant case, so Rule 37 would not 

constitute the source of authority to sanction Apple here. Although Apple is not a party in the 

instant case, the Court recognizes that Apple has a particular interest in the instant case as Apple 

has initiated its own antitrust litigation against Qualcomm. Nonetheless, if Rule 37 was the source 

 

1 All electronic case filing numbers are from FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 17-CV-00220-LHK

(NC).

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 550 Filed 02/07/18 Page 2 of 3
3

Case Nos. 17-CV-00220-LHK (NC) & 17-MD-02773-LHK (NC)

ORDER GRANTING APPLE’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S NONDISPOSITIVE 

PRETRIAL ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS

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

of authority for the sanctions order, then the sanctions order “is clearly erroneous or is contrary to 

law.”

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Apple’s motion and sets aside the sanctions order. The 

Court does not opine on the propriety of a sanction or the amount of any sanction. Those issues 

are to be considered by Judge Cousins on remand.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 7, 2018

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 550 Filed 02/07/18 Page 3 of 3