Gallion v. Apple, Inc

Filing 66

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Jointly filed by Charlene Gallion. (Fazio, Jeffrey) (Filed on 3/16/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Jeffrey L. Fazio (146043) ([e-mail])
Dina E. Micheletti (184141) ([e-mail])
FAZIO | MICHELETTI LLP
2410 Camino Ramon, Suite 315
San Ramon, CA 94583
T: 925-543-2555
F: 925-369-0344
Steven A. Schwartz (pro hac vice) ([e-mail])
Timothy N. Mathews (pro hac vice) ([e-mail])
CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
361 W. Lancaster Avenue
Haverford, PA 19041
T: 610-642-8500
F: 610-649-3633
Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel
(Additional Counsel Listed at End of Document)

15

Penelope A. Preovolos (87607) ([e-mail])
Andrew D. Muhlbach (175694) ([e-mail])
Heather A. Moser (212686) ([e-mail])
Samuel J. Boone Lunier (252732) ([e-mail])
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
T: 415-268-7000
F: 415-268-7522

16

Attorneys for Defendant Apple, Inc.

12
13
14

17
18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

20
21

IN RE APPLE IPHONE/IPOD
WARRANTY LITIGATION

22

This Document Relates To:

23

All Actions

24
25
26
27
28

No. 10-CV-01610
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE STATEMENT
DATE: March 22, 2012
TIME: 9:00 a.m.
COURTROOM: 3
TRIAL DATE: Not set

1
2

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16-10(d), the parties respectfully submit this
Joint Case Management Conference Statement.

3

Plaintiffs’ Statement:

4

The original complaint in Gallion v. Apple, Inc., No. 10-CV-01610, was filed

5

in this Court on April 15, 2010, and was later consolidated with two related

6

actions, Corsi v. Apple, Inc., No. 10-CV-03316, and Calix v. Apple, Inc., No. 10-CV-

7

05895, each of which proposed a nationwide class of consumers who had purchased

8

an original iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, and/or iPod touch device (“Class

9

Devices”).

Another, related action had been filed in the Santa Clara County

10

Superior Court, Pennington, et al. v. Apple, Inc., No. 1-10-CV-162659, which

11

proposed a class composed of California residents who had purchased a Class

12

Device.

13

In each of these actions (collectively, the “Actions”), the plaintiffs alleged

14

that Apple had a policy of denying warranty claims on the ground that Class

15

Devices had been damaged by liquid based solely on a Liquid Contact Indicator

16

(“LCI”) that had turned pink or red, without inspecting Class Devices for evidence

17

of actual damage by liquid. Plaintiffs also alleged that because Apple relied on a

18

provision in its warranties by which coverage is excluded if the consumer causes

19

damage, Apple bore the burden of proving that the Class Devices had actually been

20

damaged by the consumer, and that Apple could not carry that burden because

21

LCIs are inherently incapable of establishing that a Class Device had been

22

damaged and because Apple failed to maintain records of the majority of these

23

warranty transactions in any event. Apple has answered each of the complaints

24

and has denied all claims of liability.

25

After nearly two years of extensive discovery that included the production of

26

hundreds of thousands of documents by Apple and by third parties (3M Company,

27

the inventor of the material Apple used for the LCIs, and AT&T Wireless

28

Corporation, which sold and provided wireless service for the iPhone), and the
-1JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
(CASE NO. 10-CV-01610)

1

depositions of witnesses employed by Apple and 3M, the parties have engaged in a

2

series of mediation sessions before Retired Magistrate Judge Edward Infante and

3

Catherine Yanni of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service (“JAMS”).

4

Plaintiffs will attend the next mediation session on April 13, 2012, if

5

certain conditions have been met.

Plaintiffs believe there are issues that would

6

benefit from the Court’s assistance and are prepared to discuss the status of the

7

litigation in detail, including the status of the parties’ mediation efforts in

8

chambers, assuming that Apple agrees to do so notwithstanding the mediation

9

privilege.

10
11

Defendant’s Statement:

12

Given that the parties have attended several productive mediation sessions

13

and another session is scheduled for April 13, Apple sees no purpose to be served by

14

responding to plaintiffs’ statements respecting the merits (Apple’s view of the case

15

is set forth in prior case management conference statements).

16

mediation is ongoing, Apple does not believe it is appropriate to waive the

17

mediation privilege. Apple does not believe there are issues to be addressed by the

18

Court at this time, but of course will be prepared to address any issues that the

19

Court may wish to discuss.

20

DATED: March 16, 2012

21
22
23
24
25
26

FAZIO | MICHELETTI LLP
by

/s/ Jeffrey L. Fazio

Jeffrey L. Fazio (146043)
Dina E. Micheletti (184141)
FAZIO | MICHELETTI LLP
2410 Camino Ramon, Suite 315
San Ramon, CA 94583
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 925-369-0344

27
28
-2JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
(CASE NO. 10-CV-01610)

Because the

1

4

Steven A. Schwartz (pro hac vice)
Timothy N. Mathews (pro hac vice)
CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
361 W. Lancaster Avenue
Haverford, PA 19041
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 610- 649-3633

5

Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel

6

Kimberly A. Kralowec (163158)
Elizabeth Newman (257329)
THE KRALOWEC LAW GROUP
188 The Embarcadero, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415-546-6801

2
3

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Earl L. Bohachek (55476)
LAW OFFICES OF EARL L. BOHACHEK
One Maritime Plaza
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415-781-1034
Rose F. Luzon (221544)
James C. Shah (260435)
SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
401 West A Street
Suite 2350
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: [phone]
Philip Bohrer
Scott E. Brady
BOHRER LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70809
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

25

John P. Wolff, III
Christopher K. Jones
KEOGH, COX & WILSON
701 Main Street
Post Office Box 1151
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

26

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

22
23
24

27
28
-3JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
(CASE NO. 10-CV-01610)

1

DATED: March 16, 2012

Penelope A. Preovolos
Andrew D. Muhlbach
MORRISON | FOERSTER LLP

2
3

by/s/ Penelope A. Preovolos
Penelope A. Preovolos

4
5

Attorneys for Defendant, Apple Inc.

6
7

ATTESTATION OF FILER

8
9

I, Jeffrey L. Fazio, hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of this

10

document has been obtained from each of the other signatories. See N.D. Cal. Gen.

11

Order No. 45 ¶ X(B).

12
13
14
15

Dated:

March 16, 2012

FAZIO MICHELETTI LLP
by:

/s/ Jeffey Fazio
Jeffrey L. Fazio

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

–5–
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
(CASE NO. 10-CV-01610)