EXHIBIT 4

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 352-5 Filed 12/28/19 Page 1 of 8
DEFENDANT’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL 

RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO 

PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO

 CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00551-LHK 

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

R. Alexander Pilmer (SBN 166196) 

Tanya L. Greene (SBN 267975) 

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 

333 South Hope Street 

Los Angeles, California 90071 

Telephone: (213) 680-8400 

Facsimile (213) 680-8500 

Email: alexander.pilmer@kirkland.com 

 tanya.greene@kirkland.com 

Joseph A. Loy (admitted pro hac vice) 

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 

601 Lexington Avenue 

New York, New York 10022 

Telephone: (212) 446-4800 

Facsimile: (212) 446-4900 

Email: joseph.loy@kirkland.com 

Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

CHRISTINA GRACE and KEN POTTER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others 

Similarly Situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

APPLE INC., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00551-LHK

DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S FIRST 

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND 

OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ 

INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO, 

INTERROGATORY NO. 14

PROPOUNDING PARTY: PLAINTIFFS 

RESPONDING PARTY: DEFENDANT APPLE INC. 

SET NUMBER: TWO 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 352-5 Filed 12/28/19 Page 2 of 8
DEFENDANT’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL 

RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO 

PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO

1 CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00551-LHK 

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

Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) hereby submits its First Supplemental Responses and 

Objections to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories, Set Two, Interrogatory No. 14, including responses and 

objections to the Definitions and Instructions incorporated therein (collectively, the “Interrogatories”), 

as set forth below. Apple hereby designates these responses and objections as CONFIDENTIAL, 

pursuant to the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 61, the “Protective Order”). 

INTERROGATORY NO. 14:

On a per device basis (e.g., iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, etc.), disclose all iOS 7-related performance 

testing information. Your answer should include all performance-related information regardless of 

whether an iOS 7 upgrade was ultimately offered for that specific device. 

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14:

Apple incorporates by reference its General Objections as if fully set forth herein. Apple 

objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not relevant or proportional to 

the needs of this case, including because it is not limited to a relevant time period or to the devices and 

versions of iOS at issue in this litigation, and because it purports to seek “all iOS 7-related performance 

testing information.” Apple objects to this Interrogatory because the phrase “iOS 7-related 

performance testing information” is vague and ambiguous. Apple objects to this Interrogatory to the 

extent it is duplicative of other discovery served in connection with the above-captioned matter, 

including without limitation Request Nos. 7, 11, and 28 of Plaintiffs’ First RFPs. 

Subject to and without waiving its General or Specific Objections, Apple, pursuant to Rule 

33(d), refers Plaintiffs to Apple’s amended response to Request Nos. 7, 11, and 28 of Plaintiffs’ First 

RFPs. More specifically, Apple has produced documents relating to its testing of iOS 6.1.3, iOS 7.0, 

iOS 7.1, iOS 7.0.3, and iOS 7.0.4 on iPhone 4 and 4S devices at documents Bates-stamped APLGRACE_00169901 to APL-GRACE_00169913. Apple expressly reserves the right to supplement the 

response to this Interrogatory as necessary. 

GENERAL OBJECTIONS 

 The following General Objections apply to and are incorporated into each Specific Objection 

set forth above, as if fully set forth therein. 

CONFIDENTIAL

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 352-5 Filed 12/28/19 Page 3 of 8
DEFENDANT’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL 

RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO 

PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO

2 CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00551-LHK 

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

1. Apple’s responses and objections to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories are made without 

waiving or intending to waive any of the following objections or rights: (a) the right to make 

evidentiary objections, including without limitation the right to object to competency, relevancy, 

materiality, privilege, and admissibility of evidence for any purpose in this or any other actions or 

subsequent proceedings; (b) the right to object to the use of any response that may be provided, or the 

subject matter thereof; (c) the right to object on any ground at any time to a demand for further 

responses or other discovery involving or relating to the subject matter of these Interrogatories; and 

(d) the right at any time to revise, correct, supplement, clarify, or amend the objections or responses 

to the Interrogatories if further factual developments or analysis warrant a modification or if additional 

information is obtained. Instead, Apple makes all responses and objections with the intent of 

preserving all applicable rights, including these rights, and Apple objects to the Interrogatories to the 

extent that they purport to impose or infer a waiver of any right or objection by Apple. 

2. Apple’s responses and objections to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories are based on information 

and documents presently available to Apple. It is possible that future discovery and investigation may 

supply additional facts, information, or documents, add meaning to known facts, and establish entirely 

new factual conclusions and contentions, all of which may lead to additions to, changes in, and 

variations from the responses set forth herein. Apple reserves the right to supplement these responses 

with any information that may come to Apple’s attention in the future. 

3. Apple is responding to these Interrogatories as it interprets and understands them. If 

Plaintiffs subsequently assert an interpretation of any Interrogatory that differs from Apple’s 

understanding, Apple reserves the right to supplement the objections and/or responses herein, if 

appropriate. 

4. Apple objects to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories to the extent they seek information protected 

by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other available legal privileges or 

protections against discovery. Apple objects, without limitation, to responding to Plaintiffs’ 

Interrogatories to the extent they call for information reflecting communications with outside or inCase 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 352-5 Filed 12/28/19 Page 4 of 8
DEFENDANT’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL 

RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO 

PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO

3 CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00551-LHK 

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

house counsel in response to this lawsuit. Any inadvertent disclosure of privileged information shall 

not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege. 

5. Apple objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek proprietary or confidential 

business information, trade secrets, or other sensitive information or documents. To the extent any 

such information is disclosed, it is subject to and shall be treated in accordance with the parties’ 

Protective Order. 

6. Apple objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they seek to impose obligations 

that are beyond those required by the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Civil Local Rules 

for the Northern District of California, or to the extent they purport to impose discovery obligations 

different from or beyond those to which the parties agreed in their Stipulation and Order Regarding 

Discovery of Electronically Stored Information and Paper Documents (ECF. No. 63, the “ESI 

Stipulation”). 

7. Apple objects to the extent that the Interrogatories seek private and confidential 

information of non-parties whose privacy is protected by the United States Constitution, all other state 

constitutions, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522, 2701-2711, 

and/or all other applicable federal and state privacy laws. Apple is not authorized to and cannot waive 

third parties’ statutory and constitutional privacy rights and will not respond to any Interrogatory or 

portion thereof to the extent it calls for information implicating such rights. 

8. Apple objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they are vague, ambiguous, and/or 

fail to describe with reasonable particularity the information or response requested. 

9. Apple’s responses and objections shall not be construed in any way as an admission 

that any statement made by Plaintiffs in these Interrogatories is either factually or legally binding upon 

Apple. Apple objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they characterize facts, events, 

circumstances, or issues relating to the subject matter of this litigation. 

10. Apple’s objections to these Interrogatories do not serve as an admission by Apple that 

responsive information exists and otherwise would have been provided by Apple absent such 

objections. 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 352-5 Filed 12/28/19 Page 5 of 8
DEFENDANT’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL 

RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO 

PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO

4 CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00551-LHK 

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

11. Apple objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they are overly broad or unduly 

burdensome, including but not limited to Interrogatories that are not limited in scope, or designate a 

time or scope that, in light of the relevant circumstances, is overbroad or is neither relevant nor 

proportional to the needs of this case. This includes, without limitation, Plaintiffs’ definition of the 

“Relevant Time Period” as June 24, 2010 to the present.1 

12. Apple objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they purport to require Apple to 

respond on behalf of any person or entity other than Apple. Apple responds to these Interrogatories 

only on behalf of itself. 

13. Apple objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they purport to request 

information that is publicly or equally available to both Plaintiffs and Apple, already in the possession 

of Plaintiffs, and/or can be obtained with less burden or expense from another source, including 

sources that are publically available. 

14. Apple objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they fail to describe the 

information sought with reasonable particularity. 

15. Apple objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they assume facts not in evidence 

or that are false. 

16. Apple objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that it is duplicative of other discovery 

requests made in this litigation. 

17. Apple objects to the definitions of “APPLE,” “YOU,” and “YOUR” to the extent they 

seek to impose obligations on persons or entities not parties to this litigation and to the extent they 

seek to impose overly broad and unduly burdensome obligations on Apple to provide information in 

the possession, custody, or control of persons or entities not parties to this litigation. Apple objects to 

the definitions of “APPLE,” “YOU,” and “YOUR” as vague, ambiguous, and overly broad. Apple 

 

1

 Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories define the “Relevant Time Period” as January 1, 2010 to the present, but 

as reflected in the parties’ ESI Stipulation, Plaintiffs have since changed that time period to be 

June 24, 2010 to the present. (See ECF. No. 63 at Section II.A.1, Preservation). Apple “does not

agree that all ESI preserved pursuant to [] Section II is relevant and does not agree that all such 

ESI will be produced,” (id. at Section II.A), nor does Apple agree that June 24, 2010 to the present 

is the relevant time period. 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 352-5 Filed 12/28/19 Page 6 of 8
DEFENDANT’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL 

RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO 

PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO

5 CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00551-LHK 

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

otherwise objects to the Instructions and definitions to the extent that they render the Interrogatories 

overbroad and unduly burdensome, and would require Apple to undertake unreasonably broad or 

burdensome efforts to provide responses. 

18. Apple responds generally that its investigation of facts relevant to the above-captioned 

matter is ongoing. The foregoing responses are made to the best of Apple’s present knowledge, 

information, and belief. Apple reserves the right to supplement, amend, or correct these responses, 

including as necessary after meeting and conferring with Plaintiffs. 

19. To the extent Apple asserts a specific objection to a particular Interrogatory, Apple 

does not thereby waive these General Objections. To the extent that Apple objects to a particular 

Interrogatory but proceeds to respond to said Interrogatory, in whole or in part, Apple does not thereby 

waive any objection to that Interrogatory. 

DATED: April 30, 2018 Respectfully submitted, 

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 

/s/ Tanay Greene 

 

R. Alexander Pilmer (SBN 166196) 

Tanya L. Greene (SBN 267975) 

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 

333 South Hope Street 

Los Angeles, California 90071 

Telephone: (213) 680-8400 

Facsimile (213) 680-8500 

Email: alexander.pilmer@kirkland.com 

 tanya.greene@kirkland.com 

Joseph A. Loy (admitted pro hac vice) 

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 

601 Lexington Avenue 

New York, New York 10022 

Telephone: (212) 446-4800 

Facsimile: (212) 446-4900 

Email: joseph.loy@kirkland.com 

Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 352-5 Filed 12/28/19 Page 7 of 8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00551-LHK

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

On April 30, 2018, I caused the foregoing to be served via electronic mail upon counsel of 

record. 

/s/Adrienne J. Levin 

Adrienne J. Levin 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 352-5 Filed 12/28/19 Page 8 of 8