"The Apple iPod iTunes Anti-Trust Litigation"

Filing 579

MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Objections To Reply Declaration of Roger C. Noll and Supplemental Opposition to Class Certification Motion filed by Apple Inc.. (Kiernan, David) (Filed on 4/11/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Robert A. Mittelstaedt #60359 ramittelstaedt@jonesday.com Craig E. Stewart #129530 cestewart@jonesday.com David C. Kiernan #215335 dkiernan@jonesday.com Michael T. Scott #255282 michaelscott@jonesday.com JONES DAY 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 626-3939 Facsimile: (415) 875-5700 Attorneys for Defendant APPLE INC. 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 SAN JOSE DIVISION 13 14 15 THE APPLE iPOD iTUNES ANTI-TRUST LITIGATION 16 _____________________________________ 17 This Document Relates To: 18 ALL ACTIONS 19 20 21 Lead Case No. [Class Action] C 05-00037 JW (HRL) MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS TO REPLY DECLARATION OF ROGER C. NOLL AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION Date: April 18, 2011 Time: 9:00 a.m. Courtroom: 8, 4th Floor 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Mot. for Leave to File Supp. Objs. C 05-00037 JW (HRL); C 06-04457 JW (HRL) 1 Pursuant to Local Rule 7-11, defendant Apple Inc. hereby moves the Court for leave to 2 supplement its objections and opposition to Plaintiffs’ class certification motion based on 3 deposition testimony from Plaintiffs’ expert, Roger C. Noll, that was not available and could not 4 have been obtained before the deadlines for Apple’s previously filed objections and opposition. 5 The proposed supplemental objections and opposition is less than two pages in length. 6 As explained in the supplemental objections and opposition, Professor Noll admitted at his 7 deposition that, contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertion that Professor Noll had prepared a “working 8 regression analysis” (Doc. 550, p. 8), the regression model he proffered for the first time in his 9 reply declaration is not a valid damages model, contains specification errors that could bias its 10 results and cannot be relied upon to determine whether iPod prices were affected by the software 11 updates that Plaintiffs challenge. 12 Because the proposed regression goes to the heart of Plaintiffs’ motion for class 13 certification, Apple submits that good cause exists to permit it to present to the Court its two-page 14 supplemental objections and opposition presenting Professor Noll’s admissions. 15 16 Apple accordingly respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion for leave to file. Dated: April 11, 2011 JONES DAY 17 18 By: 19 Attorneys for Defendant APPLE INC. 20 21 /s/ Robert A. Mittelstaedt Robert A. Mittelstaedt SFI-673555v1 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Mot. for Leave to File Supp. Objs. C 05-00037 JW (HRL); C 06-04457 JW (HRL)