Source: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5:2005cv00037/26768/719/
Timestamp: 2014-10-25 04:22:12
Document Index: 483904890

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2', '§2', '§16270', '§17200', '§1750', '§ 2', '§\n2', '§17200']

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Apple Inc for "The Apple iPod iTunes Anti-Trust Litigation" :: Justia Dockets & Filings Justia.com
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT, filed by Apple Inc., Somtai Troy Charoensak, Mariana Rosen, Melanie Tucker. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Proposed Scheduling Order)(Mittelstaedt, Robert) (Filed on 9/17/2012) Modified on 9/18/2012 (jlm, COURT STAFF).
Lead Case No. C 05-00037 YGR
Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
C 05 00037 YGR
Date case was filed.
The first action was filed on January 3, 2005. Other actions followed, and the Court
consolidated the pending cases on March 21, 2007 as The Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation.
The operative Amended Consolidated Complaint was filed January 26, 2010.
List or description of all parties.
Plaintiffs and class representatives are Somtai Troy Charoensak, Mariana Rosen and
Melanie Tucker. Defendant is Apple Inc.
conferences, discovery cutoff (both fact and expert) and trial date.
List of all current deadlines, including those for dispositive motions, pretrial
Fact discovery has closed. The parties are currently completing merits-based expert
discovery, including producing additional data. The parties have been meeting and conferring
regarding a schedule for the remainder of the case and provide here as Exhibit 1 agreed-upon dates
regarding the remainder of the case. The schedule reflects the time needed to complete expert
discovery in light of the additional data being produced and availability of the experts to complete
the expert reports.
List of all pending motions and status of briefing.
No motions are pending. Following submission of Plaintiffs’ merits expert report,
Defendants anticipate filing a motion for summary judgment “addressing issues which have not yet
been raised before the Court” including issues “resulting from disclosures made in that expert
report.” (Dkt. No. 713.)
Brief description of the event underlying the action.
The named plaintiffs and class representatives are three individuals who claim that
software updates Apple issued for iPods sold after September 12, 2006 violated the antitrust laws. 1
The updates required iPod users to use Apple’s free iTunes software application rather than other
Plaintiffs represent a class of direct purchasers. In 2007, Stacie Somers filed a complaint
against Apple in Somers v. Apple Inc., Case No. 07-6507 JW, alleging the same claims as
Plaintiffs on behalf of indirect purchasers of iPods and direct purchasers of music from the iTunes
Store. The Court denied class certification and dismissed the case in its entirety. Somers
appealed, which is now pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
third-party applications to load music on iPods sold after September 12, 2006. Plaintiffs allege
that the goal of the updates was to prevent iPods from playing songs purchased from competitors,
which in turn decreased competition and allowed Apple to increase iPod prices between September
12, 2006 and March 31, 2009 to levels higher than they otherwise would have been. Apple asserts
that the updates improved its products and benefitted consumers by, among other things, ensuring
an improved and seamless customer experience in using Apple products, stopping corruption of
iPods caused by the use of third-party applications, and encouraging product innovation. Apple
further asserts that the updates had no effect on iPod prices.
Summary of all claims, counterclaims, crossclaims, third party claims.
Plaintiffs’ Amended Consolidated Complaint filed January 26, 2010 pleaded claims for (1)
Monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §2; (2) Attempted
Monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §2; (3) Violation of the
Cartwright Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§16270, et seq.; (4) Violation of California’s Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§17200, et seq.; (5) Violation of the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Cal. Civ. Code §§1750, et seq.; (6) and Common Law Monopolization
Business Practices. Dkt. No. 322. On June 29, 2010, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ Cartwright
Act, CLRA, and Common Law Monopolization claims with prejudice. (Dkt. No. 377.)
Accordingly, the remaining claims are that the software updates constitute unlawful
monopolization and attempted monopolization in violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. §
2) and California Business & Professions Code §17200.
There are no counterclaims, crossclaims or third-party claims.
how damages are computed.
List and description of relief sought and damages claimed with an explanation as to
Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for the amount of the alleged overcharge for iPods sold
between September 12, 2006 – March 31, 2009.
Status of discovery.
Fact discovery is complete. Expert discovery is ongoing and as per paragraph 3, the parties
have agreed to a schedule regarding expert discovery deadlines.
Apple’s Opp. to Plfs’ Mot. for Admin. Relief
Procedural history of the case including a list of previous motions decided, ADR
proceedings or settlement conferences scheduled or concluded, appellate
proceedings pending or concluded, and any previous referral to a magistrate judge,
including the purpose of the reference.
Complaints and Dispositive Motions
The initial complaint in this matter was filed in January 2005. In April 2007, Plaintiffs
filed a Consolidated Complaint, challenging Apple’s use of proprietary digital rights management
software on music sold through its online iTunes Store on the grounds that it constituted tying and
monopolization in violation of federal and state antitrust laws. Dkt. No. 107. As discussed below,
in December 2008, the court certified a class on this original claim. (Dkt. No. 196.) Apple filed
its Answer in June 2007. Dkt. No. 110.
In two orders entered in 2009, the Court dismissed plaintiffs’ tying claims. (Dkt. 213 and
Dkt. No. 274.) In light of this ruling, on December 21, 2009, the court sua sponte decertified the
class and invited Plaintiffs to amend their complaint to allege actions Apple took to maintain
monopoly power that were not dependent on allegations of tying. (Dkt. No. 303.)
On January 26, 2010, Plaintiffs amended their complaint, challenging software updates
issued in October 2004 (referred to as iTunes 4.7) and in September 2006 (referred to as iTunes 7.0
and discussed above). (Dkt. No. 322.) In February 2010, Apple moved to dismiss or, alternatively
for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 325.) On June 29, 2010, the Court granted Apple’s motion to
dismiss as to plaintiffs Cartwright Act, CLRA, and common law monopolization claims, otherwise
denied Apple’s motion to dismiss, and denied as premature Apple’s motion for summary judgment
pending further discovery requested by Plaintiffs. (Dkt. No. 377.) In January 2011, Apple
renewed its motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 473.) On May 19, 2011, the Court granted
summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claim challenging the iTunes 4.7 update issued in 2004 and
denied summary judgment with respect to iTunes 7.0. (Dkt. No. 627.)
On December 22, 2008, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. (Dkt.
No. 196.) On December 21, 2009, the Court sua sponte decertified both the Rule 23(b)(2) and
(b)(3). (Dkt. No. 303.) In January 2011, Plaintiffs renewed their motion for class certification
based on their remaining monopolization and attempted monopolization claims. On November 22,
2011, the Court certified a class of “[a]ll persons or entities in the United States (excluding federal,
State, and local government entities, Apple, its directors, officers, and members or their families)
who purchased [a specified model of] iPod directly from Apple between September 12, 2006 and
March 31, 2009.” (Dkt. No. 694.) 2
Class notice has been completed pursuant to the notice plan approved by the court, which
included notice by email and mail, publication, and a website. (Dkt. No. 704.) The opt out date
was July 30, 2012.
Following the Court’s November 2011 grant of class certification, Apple sought
interlocutory review under Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on December 6,
2011. (Dkt. No. 697.) The Ninth Circuit denied Apple’s petition on March 13, 2012. (Dkt. No.
The parties have engaged in mediation that was unsuccessful. In addition, on May 1 and 2,
Judge Ware held a two-day session with Plaintiffs and Apple in an effort to settle the litigation.
On June 22, 2011, the Court ordered further supplemental briefing to have the parties
address the specific definition of the products at issue in the class period, the geographic scope of
the class, and the effect of the Supreme Court’s June 20, 2011 decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v.
Dukes on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. (Dkt No. 639.) On June 23, 2011, both parties
filed further supplemental briefs to address those issues. (Dkt. Nos. 644 & 646.) Pursuant to the
Court’s August 2, 2011 Order, on September 23, 2011 and November 14, 2011, the parties filed
supplemental expert reports addressing class issues. (Dkt. Nos. 679 & 692.)
If there is an immediate need for a case management conference to be scheduled in
The parties do not believe an immediate case management conference is necessary, but are
happy to meet with the Court should the Court believe it necessary.
By:/s/ Alexandra Bernay