EXHIBIT 6 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 278-7 Filed 10/04/18 Page 1 of 13
PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO 

DEFENDANT’S FIFTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES

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

STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS 

 ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP 

Allan Steyer (State Bar No. 100318)

Jill M. Manning (State Bar No. 178849)

D. Scott Macrae (State Bar No. 104663)

One California Street, Suite 300 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 421-3400

Facsimile: (415) 421-2234

asteyer@steyerlaw.com

jmanning@steyerlaw.com

smacrae@steyerlaw.com

PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 

Bruce L. Simon (State Bar No. 96241) 

Daniel L. Warshaw (State Bar No. 185365) 

Alexander L. Simon (State Bar No. 305734) 

44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 433-9000 

Facsimile: (415) 433-9008 

bsimon@pswlaw.com 

dwarshaw@pswlaw.com 

asimon@pswlaw.com 

[Additional counsel listed on signature page]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Christina Grace and Ken Potter

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-NC

PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS AND 

RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S 

FIFTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 278-7 Filed 10/04/18 Page 2 of 13
-6-

PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO 

DEFENDANT’S FIFTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES

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

APL-GRACE_00000015; APL-GRACE_00000018; APL-GRACE_00010198; APLGRACE_00012808; APL-GRACE_00013049; APL-GRACE_00015517; APLGRACE_00042431; APL-GRACE_00051571; APL-GRACE_00052567; APLGRACE_00052811; APL-GRACE_00099304; APL-GRACE_00099793; APLGRACE_00148220.

Plaintiffs will supplement this response, as appropriate, in due course.

INTERROGATORY NO. 17:

State each act that You contend Apple took after the sale of Your iPhone 4 to You to 

effect a trespass.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17:

Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by 

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

protections. Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory as premature, overly broad and burdensome 

insofar as it purports to obligate Plaintiffs to state “each act,” particularly given that fact 

discovery is ongoing and Plaintiffs, inter alia, (i) are continuing to review and analyze the 

documents produced by Apple to date; (ii) are awaiting Apple’s response to discovery requests 

served by Plaintiffs; (iii) are awaiting the production of additional documents, the production 

of which has been requested by Plaintiffs; (iv) have noticed and/or intend to notice the 

depositions of individuals involved with and/or familiar with the subject matter of this 

Interrogatory; and (v) may be seeking additional discovery, as necessary, relating to the subject 

matter of this Interrogatory.

Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections and responses, and reserving 

all rights to amend and/or supplement this response, Plaintiffs state that:

 The FaceTime Break was fully-anticipated by Apple long before its occurrence, yet 

Apple knowingly and intentionally elected not to prevent it. No later than February 2013, 

Apple began discussing the impending iPhone Device CA expiration, which would occur 

upon the pre-planned, pre-programmed date of April 16, 2014. On February 22, 2013, 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 278-7 Filed 10/04/18 Page 3 of 13
-7-

PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO 

DEFENDANT’S FIFTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES

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

Apple personnel, including Apple’s PKI Services team, discussed the impending iPhone 

Device CA expiration during a meeting. That same day, Apple confirmed that it was 

actively working on ascertaining the full impact of the iPhone Device CA expiration.

 On April 16, 2013, Apple recognized that it was now less than one year away from the 

FaceTime Break, and further recognized that the iPhone Device CA certificate being 

checked not only at activation but also at run time meant that iPhone features that checked 

the certificate—of which FaceTime was one—would likely stop working upon expiration 

of the iPhone Device CA certificate. Also on April 16, 2013, Apple confirmed that it was 

actively analyzing issues related to the impending FaceTime Break. As Apple continued 

to analyze the issue in April and May 2013, it enhanced its understanding of the 

ramifications of the impending FaceTime Break. Among other things, Apple discussed 

preventing the FaceTime Break by renewing the iPhone Device CA certificate prior to 

its programmed, scheduled and anticipated April 16, 2014 expiration. Mr. Justin Wood, 

Engineer Manager on the FaceTime client team, summarized the impact of the impending 

FaceTime Break as early as May 24, 2013 in an email chain titled “Re: Expiring iPhone 

Device Sub-CA”: “When validation fails, we expect FaceTime to fail....”

 Apple continued to analyze the anticipated FaceTime Break and its impact, and as of 

October 11, 2013, Apple’s analysis of the iPhone Device CA certificate reaffirmed not 

only that the iPhone Device CA certificate would expire on April 16, 2014 as 

programmed, scheduled and expected by Apple, but also that features that checked the 

expiration of the iPhone Device CA certificate (as FaceTime was known to do) would 

cease to function when the appointed April 16, 2014 expiration date arrived. Apple’s 

analysis further revealed that because the iPhone Device CA certificate was hard-coded 

onto the device in FaceTime, once Apple allowed the iPhone Device CA certificate to 

expire, new certificates could not be issued and FaceTime would cease to function on 

those devices.

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 278-7 Filed 10/04/18 Page 4 of 13
-8-

PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO 

DEFENDANT’S FIFTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES

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

 In mid-October 2013, Apple continued its analysis of the impending expiration of the 

iPhone Device CA, including during meetings convened on October 15, 2013 and 

October 18, 2013 to discuss that issue. Apple further confirmed during this period that 

the impending expiration of the iPhone Device CA would cause FaceTime to fail for all 

affected devices. Apple also identified and considered various options for avoiding 

and/or fixing the FaceTime Break, including (i) re-certification of the iPhone Device CA 

with a new expiration date, which would prevent the iPhone Device CA from expiring 

on April 16, 2014, thereby avoiding the FaceTime Break; (ii) a device-side fix whereby 

FaceTime would no longer check the iPhone Device CA; and (iii) issuance of a new 

device identity for iOS 6.x (as Apple had previously done in iOS 7). With respect to the 

device-side fix whereby FaceTime would no longer check the iPhone Device CA 

certificate expiration, Apple contemplated only offering the solution for iPod Touch 4th 

Generation devices, and therefore withholding the fix from, inter alia, iPhone 4 and 4S 

devices. Apple also discussed whether to extend to iOS 6 users a fix that Apple provided 

to iOS 7 users in response to the expiration of a certificate three years after activation of 

the user’s device, the expiration of which would cause FaceTime to stop working absent 

implementation of certain available remedial measures. Apple determined that it would 

fix the three-year expiration issue in iOS 7, which would force iPhone 4 and 4S users 

using iOS 6 and earlier to migrate to iOS 7. Apple recognized and noted that users might 

be unhappy with the forced migration. Apple further recognized that even if it were to 

provide those users a fix for the three-year certificate expiration issue, absent a fix for the 

FaceTime Break, all those customers would fall victim to the FaceTime Break 

programmed, scheduled and anticipated by Apple to occur on April 16, 2014, and would 

be forced to migrate to iOS 7 in order to restore FaceTime on their device. As such, Apple 

determined that providing those users the contemplated solution to the three-year 

expiration issue was not recommended. In reaching that affirmative decision, Apple 

expressly recognized that its refusal to provide users on iOS 6 and earlier a fix would 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 278-7 Filed 10/04/18 Page 5 of 13
-9-

PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO 

DEFENDANT’S FIFTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES

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

leave them with “no recourse,” and that they would all fall victim to the FaceTime Break 

on April 16, 2014, which would prevent FaceTime from working on their devices absent 

migration to iOS 7. 

 During this period in October 2013, Apple worked to convene emergency meetings to 

discuss the impending FaceTime Break that would result from the expiration of the 

iPhone Device CA certificate on April 16, 2014 as programmed, scheduled and expected 

by Apple, and to address and consider the severe impact that the FaceTime Break would 

inflict on its victims. Although Apple had identified how to fix the FaceTime Break, it 

affirmatively decided to withhold any fix from iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S users on iOS 6 

and earlier. Instead, Apple elected to provide the fix only to users who migrated to iOS 

7, and to users with iOS 6 on the iPod Touch 4th Generation. Apple could have provided 

iPhone 4 and 4S users on iOS 6 the same fix provided to iPod Touch 4th Generation users 

on iOS 6, but affirmatively decided not to, meaning that the only way for iPhone 4 and 

4S users with iOS 6 and earlier to restore FaceTime on their devices after the planned 

and anticipated FaceTime Break that Apple had programmed to occur on April 16, 2014 

would be for those users to migrate to iOS 7. Apple’s decision to affirmatively withhold 

from iPhone 4 and 4S users on iOS 6 and earlier a fix for the FaceTime Break was 

motivated in whole or in part by Apple’s desire to reduce relay usage, as set forth in

Plaintiffs’ amended responses and objections to Defendant’s Interrogatory No. 8. 

Plaintiffs expressly incorporate into their response to this Interrogatory the facts and 

documents set forth and/or referenced in Plaintiffs’ response to Defendant’s 

Interrogatory No. 8.

 Apple was careful in its discussions regarding its plans to migrate FaceTime away from 

relayed calls with the release of iOS 7. Indeed, as early as March 7, 2013, Apple 

instructed its personnel not to discuss over email the possibility of providing iOS 6 

iPhone users with the ability to make direct peer-to-peer FaceTime calls. Further, Apple 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 278-7 Filed 10/04/18 Page 6 of 13
-10-

PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO 

DEFENDANT’S FIFTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES

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

included on its January 5, 2018 privilege log over two dozen documents specifically 

related to relay usage from the period of December 2012 to March 2013.

 In the days leading up to the preordained and highly-anticipated April 16, 2014 FaceTime 

Break, Apple personnel expressed concern about the gravity of the impending FaceTime 

Break. On April 2, 2014, Jacques Vidrine sent an email stating “let me just voice my 

concern here. Maybe someone can talk me off the ledge by convincing me this is not as 

big a deal as I think.” Nevertheless, Apple once again affirmatively decided, consistent 

with its previous affirmative decisions regarding the impending FaceTime Break, (i) to 

withhold from iPhone 4 and 4S users on iOS 6 and earlier any fix for the FaceTime Break, 

and (ii) not to take any action to prevent the FaceTime Break from occurring.

 On April 16, 2014—the day preordained by Apple on which FaceTime was scheduled 

and expected to break—Apple employees awaited the FaceTime Break to strike millions 

of Apple’s customers, exchanging emails containing messages such as, “Well, today’s 

the day!”

 On April 16, 2014, beginning at 22:54:45 2014 GMT, as programmed, scheduled and 

expected by Apple, the iPhone Device CA certificate expired, breaking FaceTime for all 

iPhone 4 and 4S users on iOS 6 and earlier.

 As Apple expressly recognized on the April 16, 2014 day of the FaceTime Break, as a 

result of the FaceTime Break, “all users with [iOS] 6.0 and older c[ould]n’t make 

FaceTime [calls] any longer,” which left them, as Apple admitted, “basically screwed[.]”

 Handwritten notes of Apple employee Dallas De Atley dated April 17, 2014 reflect 

Apple’s view that when the “iPhone Device CA expired, hilarity ensue[d].” Similarly, 

the day of the FaceTime Break, Apple internally circulated the following cartoon in 

connection with the FaceTime Break:

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 278-7 Filed 10/04/18 Page 7 of 13
-11-

PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO 

DEFENDANT’S FIFTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES

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

 As Apple expressly recognized on April 17, 2014, there was excellent Apple executive 

visibility into the FaceTime Break and its aftermath, including from Apple executives 

Craig Federighi, Eddy Cue and Greg Joswiak.

 Rather than extending a fix to the victims of the FaceTime Break, Apple once again 

affirmatively decided to withhold any such fix. Nor did Apple extend to the victims of 

the FaceTime Break any other remedial and/or compensatory offering. Instead, Apple—

including Apple executives Craig Federighi, Eddy Cue and Greg Joswiak—focused their 

efforts on discussing how to evade the potential public backlash against Apple resulting 

from the FaceTime Break, ultimately deciding that Apple should falsely blame the 

FaceTime Break on a “bug.”

 Months after the FaceTime Break, Apple admitted that it had intentionally and 

affirmatively broken FaceTime. On June 18, 2014, Patrick Gates sent an email to various 

Apple personnel stating “I understand we did something in April around iOS 6 to reduce 

relay utilization,” and asking for “details” regarding what Apple “did...in April around 

iOS 6 to reduce relay utilization.” Apple engineer Gokul Thirumalai reminded Gates that 

“We broke all iOS6, and the only way to get FaceTime working again is to upgrade to 

iOS7.”

In addition to the specific facts set forth above, Plaintiffs also direct Defendant to the 

facts, already known to Apple, that are reflected and/or referenced within documents produced 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 278-7 Filed 10/04/18 Page 8 of 13
-12-

PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO 

DEFENDANT’S FIFTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES

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

by Apple in this litigation, including the following: APL-GRACE_00000988, APLGRACE_00000994; APL-GRACE_00000995; APL-GRACE_00002942; APLGRACE_00003930; APL-GRACE_00003872; APL-GRACE_00005777; APLGRACE_00005793; APL-GRACE_00005801; APL-GRACE_00005807; APLGRACE_00008298; APL-GRACE_00008039; APL-GRACE_00008999; APLGRACE_00010314; APL-GRACE_00012731; APL-GRACE_00013050; APLGRACE_00013052; APL-GRACE_00013938; APL-GRACE_00013995; APLGRACE_00014721; APL-GRACE_00017420; APL-GRACE_00022187; APLGRACE_00025224; APL-GRACE_00025227; APL-GRACE_00034276; APLGRACE_00035672; APL-GRACE_00035674; APL-GRACE_00044231; APLGRACE_00044254; APL-GRACE_00049097; APL-GRACE_00052572; APLGRACE_00054991; APL-GRACE_00056772; APL-GRACE_00056875; APLGRACE_00056973; APL-GRACE_00099488, APL-GRACE_00099494; APLGRACE_00099495; APL-GRACE_00148842; APL-GRACE_00164166.

Plaintiffs will supplement this response, as appropriate, in due course.

INTERROGATORY NO. 18:

State how much of Your iPhone 4’s purchase price You contend is attributable to the 

phone offering a functional FaceTime feature.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18:

Plaintiffs object to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by 

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

protections. Plaintiffs object to the phrase “attributable to the phone offering a functional 

FaceTime feature” on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous. Plaintiffs object to this 

Interrogatory as premature given that fact discovery is ongoing and Plaintiffs, inter alia, (i) are 

continuing to review and analyze the documents produced by Apple to date; (ii) are awaiting 

Apple’s response to discovery requests served by Plaintiffs; (iii) are awaiting the production of 

additional documents, the production of which has been requested by Plaintiffs; (iv) have 

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 278-7 Filed 10/04/18 Page 9 of 13
-14-

PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO 

DEFENDANT’S FIFTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES

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

DATED: September 5, 2018 STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS 

 ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP

By: /s/ Jill M. Manning 

 Jill M. Manning

Allan Steyer (State Bar No. 100318)

Jill M. Manning (State Bar No. 178849)

D. Scott Macrae (State Bar No. 104663)

One California Street, Suite 300 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 421-3400

Facsimile: (415) 421-2234

asteyer@steyerlaw.com

jmanning@steyerlaw.com

smacrae@steyerlaw.com

PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 

Bruce L. Simon (State Bar No. 96241) 

Daniel L. Warshaw (State Bar No. 185365) 

Alexander L. Simon (State Bar No. 305734) 

44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 433-9000 

bsimon@pswlaw.com 

dwarshaw@pswlaw.com 

asimon@pswlaw.com 

FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC 

David F.E. Tejtel (admitted pro hac vice) 

240 East 79th Street, Suite A 

New York, NY 10075 

Telephone: (646) 661-5881 

dtejtel@fotpllc.com 

CALDWELL CASSADY & CURRY 

Bradley W. Caldwell (admitted pro hac vice) 

Jason D. Cassady (admitted pro hac vice) 

John Austin Curry (admitted pro hac vice) 

2101 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 1000 

Dallas, TX 75201 

Telephone: (214) 888-4848 

bcaldwell@caldwellcc.com 

jcassady@caldwellcc.com 

acurry@caldwellcc.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Christina Grace and Ken Potter

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 278-7 Filed 10/04/18 Page 10 of 13
-15-

PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO 

DEFENDANT’S FIFTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES

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

VERIFICATION OF INTERROGATORY ANSWERS 

I, Christina Grace, believe, based on reasonable inquiry, that the foregoing answers are 

true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I verify under penalty of 

perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this _______ date of September, 

2018, in Dillon Beach, California.

 ___________________

 Christina Grace

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 278-7 Filed 10/04/18 Page 11 of 13
-16-

PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO 

DEFENDANT’S FIFTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES

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

VERIFICATION OF INTERROGATORY ANSWERS 

I, Ken Potter, believe, based on reasonable inquiry, that the foregoing answers are true 

and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I verify under penalty of 

perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this ______ date of September,

2018, in San Diego, California.

 ___________________

 Ken Potter

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 278-7 Filed 10/04/18 Page 12 of 13
-17-

PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO 

DEFENDANT’S FIFTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES

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

I hereby certify that on September 5, 2018, I served foregoing PLAINTIFFS’

OBECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIFTH SET OF 

INTERROGATORIES on Apple’s counsel by email as set forth below:

R. Alexander Pilmer

Tanya L. Greene

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

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

601 Lexington Avenue

New York, New York 10022

Telephone: (212) 446-4980

Facsimile: (212) 446-6460

joseph.loy@kirkland.com

Joshua H. Lerner

Sonal N. Mehta

Eugene Novikov

Stephen Elkind

DURIE TANGRI LLP

217 Leidesdorff Street

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: 415-362-6666

Facsimile: 415-236-6300

jlerner@durietangri.com

smehta@durietangri.com

enovikov@durietangri.com

selkind@durietangri.com

 /s/ Suneel Jain 

 Suneel Jain

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 278-7 Filed 10/04/18 Page 13 of 13