Adkins et al v. Apple Inc et al
Filing
156
FURTHER RULINGS REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 04/10/2015. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/10/2015)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
FABRIENNE ENGLISH,
Case No. 14-cv-01619-WHO
Plaintiff,
8
v.
FURTHER RULINGS REGARDING
DISCOVERY DISPUTE
9
10
APPLE INC, et al.,
Re: Dkt. Nos. 149, 152, 153
Defendants.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
On April 10, 2015, I held a telephonic hearing to discuss the parties’ latest discovery
13
disputes. Yesterday I posted a Tentative Ruling Regarding Discovery Dispute. Dkt. No. 154.
14
The tentative is essentially repeated below as part of the final order on this dispute, with new
15
sections II, III and IV concerning the additional matters discussed today.
16
A central dispute between the parties is whether discovery may encompass the APP plan as
17
well as the AC+ plan. Apple argues that the sole remaining class representative only purchased
18
the AC+ plan, that the APP plan primarily covers computers and is a parts-based, rather than
19
whole unit replacement, plan, that the class representative’s claim is for accidental damage which
20
would not be covered by the APP plan, and that she relies only on oral misrepresentations for her
21
claims. While Apple’s arguments to limit this case may have force when it opposes a motion for
22
class certification, they are not persuasive in the context of this discovery dispute.
23
I. EFFECT OF NAMED PLAINTIFF WITHDRAWING
24
In discovery disputes before class certification, “[t]he plaintiff has the burden to either
25
make a prima facie showing that the Rule 23 class action requirements are satisfied, or to show
26
that discovery is likely to produce substantiation of the class allegations.” Willner v. Manpower,
27
Inc., No. C 11-2846 JSW MEJ, 2012 WL 4902994, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2012) (internal
28
citations and quotations omitted).
1
In determining whether products are substantially similar so as to allow a named plaintiff
2
to represent a class of consumers of a product he or she did not buy, I have concluded in another
3
case that:
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Recognizing the varying analyses in this District regarding
substantially similar products in class actions at the pleading stage, I
conclude that the best approach is one which focuses on whether the
type of claim and consumer injury is substantially similar as
between the purchased and unpurchased products.
That
determination necessarily focuses on whether the resolution of the
asserted claims will be identical between the purchased and
unpurchased products. For example, a claim that products are
illegally mislabeled as a matter of law because the labels fail to
disclose something required by a statute or regulation can be
resolved without a context-specific analysis of each product's label.
The label is either illegal or it is not. That the products bearing the
challenged label may be different—or that the labels themselves are
different in other respects—is immaterial to the determination of
whether the label is in fact illegal.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Ang v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., No. 13-CV-01196-WHO, 2014 WL 1024182, at *8 (N.D. Cal.
12
Mar. 13, 2014). Products may be substantially similar “where differences between the purchased
13
products and the unpurchased products do not matter because the legal claim and injury to the
14
consumer is the same, and where both the legal claims/injury are similar and the products
15
16
17
themselves are similar.” Id. at *5. The “point of the substantially similar approach” was to
“ensure that the plaintiff is seeking to represent only those individuals who have suffered
essentially the same injury as the plaintiff.” Id. at *6.
18
Ogden v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC discussed this issue in the context of discovery,
19
ultimately concluding that most of the products were not substantially similar. 292 F.R.D. 620,
20
21
626 (N.D. Cal. 2013). However, unlike in this case, Ogden found that “here not all of the labels
bear one similar claim on which all consumers could have relied” and that the “claims are not
22
limited to a particular advertisement on the products [plaintiff] bought that also were included on
23
24
other products as was the situation in the cases she cites.” Id.
In this case, the crux of the plaintiffs’ TAC, or at least of several claims in the TAC,
25
involve alleged misrepresentations in both the AC+ plan and the APP plan. Essentially, the
26
plaintiffs suffer injury because they receive refurbished parts or devices under the plan that are of
27
lesser quality than new parts or devices, even though they believe that they are receiving new
28
2
1
ones. The relevant language in both plans is identical, and the misrepresentation and injury
2
appears the same. The plaintiffs have made a prima facie showing of typicality and that discovery
3
would help substantiate the class allegations. It appears that discovery is at least merited as to
4
both plans, and any doubts should be resolved at the class certification stage. See Astiana v.
5
Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream, Inc., No. C-11-2910 EMC, 2012 WL 2990766, at *13 (N.D. Cal. July
6
20, 2012) (“Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient similarity between the products they did purchase
7
and those that they did not; any concerns of DGIC and/or the Court about material differences are
8
better addressed at the class certification stage rather than at the 12(b)(6) stage.”).
9
II. NO EXPANSION TO DEVICES OTHER THAN IPHONES
During the hearing, plaintiffs’ counsel asked that Apple be required to provide the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
requested discovery on iPads and iPods as well as iPhones. Apple objected, pointing out that the
12
named plaintiff only raised issues with her iPhone; that Apple’s other products are significantly
13
different than iPhones in terms of repair and replacement; that the burden of providing discovery
14
on the additional products would be enormous; and that manageability and typicality, at least,
15
would be raised if the other devices were included. I agree on all counts, and limit discovery to
16
iPhones.
17
III. CALL CENTERS AND INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS
18
Plaintiffs’ counsel also asked that Apple produce information that was generally applicable
19
to independent contractors and others responding to calls related to the provision of replacement
20
devices, as opposed to just Apple employees. Apple should produce such generally applicable
21
materials, but need not produce specific information related to individual independent contractors.
22
IV. SCHEDULING
23
Apple has agreed to use its best efforts to produce all documents and to respond to the
24
interrogatories propounded recently by plaintiffs by April 24, 2015. It is scheduling depositions
25
of its witnesses during the week of May 4, 2015, and will tie down the date for the deposition of
26
the currently vacationing witness as soon as practicable.
27
28
3
1
2
3
4
5
V. DISPUTES REGARDING SPECIFIC DEPOSITION TOPICS:
Topic 1: The changes to terms made resulting in different versions of the AppleCare Protection
Plan and AppleCare Plus warranties, including the dates on which a change was made, and the
date on which the new version and its terms became effective.
Apple has offered a witness, and my decision to allow discovery on the APP plan resolves
this issue.
6
7
8
9
10
Topic 2: The criteria which are used by Apple store employees and Apple, Inc. as Administrator
of the AppleCare Protection Plan and AppleCare Plus warranty plans, to determine whether to
offer a new replacement unit or refurbished or service unit (previously used or reconditioned) unit
(including but not limited to iPhones, iPads, laptops and all other devices which may be
purchased with AppleCare Protection Plan and AppleCare Plus) for Covered Equipment to a
customer making a warranty claim under the AppleCare Protection Plan or AppleCare Plus
warranty, and the life cycle of those units and parts that are turned into APPLE.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Apple objects to the wording of the topic. However, it has agreed to produce a witness to
12
explain its practices regarding the provision of replacement devices, and that witness can explain
13
why plaintiffs’ wording is inaccurate.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Topics 3 and 4: 3) The use of (application in practice) and definitions of the word “refurbished”
and “service unit” used by Apple, Inc. as Administrator of the AppleCare Protection Plan and
AppleCare Plus warranty, with respect to units (including but not limited to iPhones, iPads,
laptops and all other devices which may be purchased with AppleCare Protection Plan and
AppleCare Plus) that are provided to customers in response to claims for Covered Equipment
under the AppleCare Protection and/or AppleCare Plus warranty programs, and 4) The use of
(application in practice) and definitions of the terms “functionally equivalent to the original
product” and “equivalent to new in terms of performance and reliability” used by Apple, Inc. as
Administrator of the AppleCare Protection Plan and AppleCare Plus warranties, with respect to
units (including but not limited to iPhones, iPads, laptops and all other devices which may be
purchased with AppleCare Protection Plan and AppleCare Plus) that are provided to customers in
response to claims for Covered Equipment under the AppleCare Protection Plan and/or AppleCare
Plus warranty programs.
There is no actual dispute – Apple agreed to produce a witness.
Topics 8 and 9: 8) The total number of people in the United States who purchased either
AppleCare or AppleCare Plus Protection Plan warranty, who purchased Apple Care Plus
Protection Plan warranty on a date subsequent to the original purchase of the iPhone, who
purchased Apple Care Plus Protection Plan who did not purchase the iPhone directly from Apple,
and who purchased Apple Care Plus Protection Plan contemporaneously with the first coverage
for accidental damage thus resulting in the person only having one remaining incident left, and 9)
The total number of warranty claims for each device by model and year made under AppleCare
Protection Plan and AppleCare Plus warranties for the Relevant Time Period for which
4
1
refurbished units or service units or parts were provided under the terms of the warranty in
satisfaction of a claim for Covered Equipment, broken down by type of unit / device.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
Apple argues that these are improper matters for testimony under 30(b)(6), and that it will
answer these questions in interrogatories. Plaintiffs indicate that if Apple provides the answers
before the time for depositions it will accept answers via interrogatory. This should be answered
via interrogatory response pursuant to the schedule described above.
Topics 14 and 22: 14) The process by which warranty claims for Covered Equipment under the
AppleCare Protection Plan and AppleCare Plus warranty plans are evaluated, including criteria
used, sequence of events, and persons or entities involved in decision-making as to claims, and 22)
The criteria by which decisions are made to offer parts replacement as opposed to a new device or
warranty replacement device, where the issue is a cracked screen on an iPhone or similar
component-based issue on an iPhone or other Class Device.
With topics 14 and 22, the parties disagree whether it is sufficient to have an Apple witness
testify about the process to evaluate warranty claims in the retail store and the criteria to evaluate
warranty claims. Plaintiffs argue that there might be some kind of appeal and that someone with
knowledge of the more general corporate plan, and not only a retail employee, should be deposed.
However, there is no evidence that there is any kind of appeal process or that a retail employee
would be insufficient. Apple’s proffered witness is adequate.
17
18
19
20
Topic 19: The process(es) employed and databases used for keeping track of used or refurbished
units (e.g., as to notations as to serial numbers and/or association with sales or warranty claims)
once sold or provided through warranty claims to customers.
Both parties agree that the only question is whether Apple is able to track the type of
21
replacement devices and not how it tracks them. Again, Apple states that an interrogatory would
22
be the more appropriate method of obtaining this information. I agree, and Apple should respond
23
pursuant to the schedule described above.
24
25
26
27
Topic 20: The differences in processing of claims and directing of Apple consumers calling Apple
with complaints or claims (i.e., differences between treatment of claims under each warranty as
the others), with respect to complaints or claims made as to a) AppleCare Protection Plan; (b)
AppleCare+; c) Non-Warranty service; d) One-Year Limited Warranty service; and e) 90-day
Complimentary Support.
28
5
1
Apple objects to this as far as it relates to the one-year limited warranty and non-warranty
2
services. I have already limited discovery relating to the warranties not at issue (like the one-year
3
warranty) in the March 24, 2015 Order, and I sustain Apple’s objection.
4
Topics 21 and 23: 21) The complaint department and call centers and subcontracted call center
employees as to their processes for handling complaints by customers as to warranty claims, and
handling of complaints as to refurbished and/or service units and/or used Class Devices and parts,
and also handling of Complaints of service units that are devices sold as new, and complaints of
loss of incidences in the AppleCare+ extended warranty or two incidences not being provided, and
23) The training of the employees who staff call centers, retail centers and stores, refurbishment
and repair facilities, at home advisors, and are employed by subcontractors/temporary agencies.
5
6
7
8
9
Apple objects to the breadth of these topics, and to the discovery relating to a call center.
Apple should provide a witness who can speak to the process for handling complaints by
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
customers about warranty claims. Handling complaints concerning non-warranty claims is not
12
relevant, nor is training except with respect to handling complaints regarding the warranty claims.
13
14
15
Topic 18: The marketing of service plans and warranties in Apple stores and on the internet.
Apple will provide a witness for deposition.
16
17
18
19
Dated: April 10, 2015
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?