"The Apple iPod iTunes Anti-Trust Litigation"

Filing 577

Declaration of Paula M. Roach in Support of 575 Response ( Non Motion ), Response ( Non Motion ) Declaration of Paula M. Roach in Support of Plaintiffs Opposition to Apples Objections to Plaintiffs Evidence Filed in Support of Reply in Support of Plaintiffs Renewed Motion for Class Certification filed byMelanie Tucker. (Related document(s) 575 ) (Bernay, Alexandra) (Filed on 4/11/2011)

Download PDF
1 ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 2 JOHN J. STOIA, JR. (141757) BONNY E. SWEENEY (176174) 3 THOMAS R. MERRICK (177987) ALEXANDRA S. BERNAY (211068) 4 CARMEN A. MEDICI (248417) 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 5 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619/231-1058 6 619/231-7423 (fax) johns@rgrdlaw.com 7 bonnys@rgrdlaw.com tmerrick@rgrdlaw.com 8 xanb@rgrdlaw.com cmedici@rgrdlaw.com 9 THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM 10 ROY A. KATRIEL (pro hac vice) 1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 500 11 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: 202/625-4342 12 202/330-5593 (fax) rak@katriellaw.com 13 Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs 14 [Additional counsel appear on signature page.] 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 SAN JOSE DIVISION 18 THE APPLE IPOD ITUNES ANTI-TRUST ) Lead Case No. C-05-00037-JW(HRL) 19 LITIGATION ) ) CLASS ACTION 20 ) ) DECLARATION OF PAULA M. ROACH IN This Document Relates To: 21 ) SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION ) TO APPLE’S OBJECTIONS TO ALL ACTIONS. 22 ) PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENCE FILED IN ) SUPPORT OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 23 ) PLAINTIFFS’ RENEWED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION 24 JUDGE: Hon. James Ware 25 DATE: April 18, 2011 TIME: 9:00 a.m. 26 CTRM: 8, 4th Floor 27 28 617773_1 1 I, PAULA M. ROACH, declare as follows: 2 1. I am an associate at the law firm Blood Hurst and O’Reardon LLP. Through 3 February 4, 2011, I was an associate at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (“Robbins Geller”), 4 co-lead counsel of record for Plaintiffs Melanie Tucker, Mariana Rosen and Somtai Troy 5 Charoensak (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) in this action. I have personal knowledge of the matters stated 6 herein, and, if called upon, I could and would competently testify thereto. 7 2. I submit this Declaration in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Apple’s Objections to 8 Plaintiffs’ Evidence Filed in Support of Reply in Support of Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Class 9 Certification. 10 3. I have reviewed the Declaration of David C. Kiernan submitted by Apple in 11 opposition to Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Class Certification. I have also reviewed the 12 Declaration of Alexandra S. Bernay submitted in Support of Plaintiffs’ Reply Memorandum in 13 Support of Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Class Certification. 14 4. I worked extensively on the litigation from January 2008 until February 2011. A 15 number of the statements in the Kiernan Declaration regarding conversations he claims to have had 16 with me and other discovery-related matters do not comport with my recollection. 17 5. In Paragraph 6 of Mr. Kiernan’s Declaration he states that he had discussions with me 18 regarding staging the production of documents. While Apple did request a staging of production, at 19 no time did Plaintiffs ever agree to stage discovery. Plaintiffs actively sought production from 20 Apple responsive to all discovery requests including the Rule 30(b)(6) document requests. In fact, 21 the parties agreed on search terms and custodians for all discovery in September 2009. While Apple 22 continued to request that discovery be staged, Plaintiffs continued to stand by their position that 23 staging was inappropriate. I told Mr. Kiernan this on more than one occasion. 24 6. In Paragraph 7, Mr. Kiernan states that material was produced in response to Rule 25 30(b)(6) requests. In fact, Apple produced very little material, just a few thousand pages, and the 26 documents were incomplete and duplicative. In October 2009, Thomas R. Merrick, another attorney 27 at Robbins Geller, and I, spoke to Mr. Kiernan regarding Apple’s production several times. During 28 this period Mr. Merrick and I repeatedly explained to Apple that we needed Apple to produce 617773_1 DEC OF PAULA M. ROACH ISO PLTFS’ OPPO TO APPLE’S OBJECTIONS TO PLTFS’ EVIDENCE FILED ISO REPLY ISO PLTFS’ RENEWED MOT FOR CC - C-05-00037-JW(HRL) -1- 1 complete sets of data that would enable Plaintiffs’ expert to complete a damages study. I never 2 indicated to Apple’s counsel that data was not required or unwanted. 3 7. In Paragraph 13 of his Declaration, Mr. Kiernan states that he and I had discussions 4 regarding data to be collected for Plaintiffs’ economist, Professor Roger Noll. Plaintiffs asked for 5 complete cost data for iPods and the iTunes Store for a period extending past the end of the class 6 period. However, despite Mr. Kiernan’s statement, I never agreed to put off production of this data 7 for any reason. 8 8. I was involved in numerous phone calls and email communications with Mr. Kiernan 9 regarding data needed by Professor Noll. I repeatedly requested updates regarding the production of 10 this data. Mr. Kiernan continually promised that he was meeting with his client and would produce 11 the data. When the data was not produced as promised, I would inquire again and Mr. Kiernan 12 would state that he was meeting with his client and would produce. While Apple did agree to 13 prioritize custodial productions some time in late October 2010 because depositions were about to 14 begin, this was not at the expense of data being produced. In fact, I understood from Apple that at 15 least fifteen lawyers were working on producing documents throughout the production process. At 16 no time did I agree that the data production should be delayed until the last week, and up until the 17 last day, of discovery. 18 9. Throughout his Declaration, Mr. Kiernan intimates that I was the only person 19 involved in discovery matters. This is not true. Either Mr. Merrick, Ms. Bernay or Ms. Sweeney 20 were involved in calls and/or emails of substance or I reported to those attorneys directly after 21 meeting with Apple’s counsel. 22 10. Based on my personal knowledge regarding the various discovery matters that 23 occurred prior to February 4, 2011, the last day I worked at Robbins Geller, the Declaration of Ms. 24 Bernay accurately reflects my understanding of the various document and data production issues 25 between Plaintiffs and Apple. 26 27 28 617773_1 DEC OF PAULA M. ROACH ISO PLTFS’ OPPO TO APPLE’S OBJECTIONS TO PLTFS’ EVIDENCE FILED ISO REPLY ISO PLTFS’ RENEWED MOT FOR CC - C-05-00037-JW(HRL) -2- 1 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on April 11, 2011, I authorized the electronic filing of the foregoing with 3 the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the 4 e-mail addresses denoted on the attached Electronic Mail Notice List, and I hereby certify that I 5 caused to be mailed the foregoing document or paper via the United States Postal Service to the non6 CM/ECF participants indicated on the attached Manual Notice List. 7 I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the 8 foregoing is true and correct. Executed on April 11, 2011. 9 s/ Alexandra S. Bernay ALEXANDRA S. BERNAY 10 13 ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-3301 Telephone: 619/231-1058 619/231-7423 (fax) 14 E-mail: 11 12 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 617773_1 xanb@rgrdlaw.com CAND-ECF- Page 1 of 2 Mailing Information for a Case 5:05-cv-00037-JW Electronic Mail Notice List The following are those who are currently on the list to receive e-mail notices for this case. Francis Joseph Balint , Jr fbalint@bffb.com Alexandra Senya Bernay xanb@rgrdlaw.com Michael D Braun service@braunlawgroup.com Michael D. Braun service@braunlawgroup.com,clc@braunlawgroup.com Todd David Carpenter tcarpenter@bffb.com,pjohnson@bffb.com,rcreech@bffb.com Andrew S. Friedman khonecker@bffb.com,rcreech@bffb.com,afriedman@bffb.com Alreen Haeggquist alreenh@zhlaw.com,judyj@zhlaw.com Roy Arie Katriel rak@katriellaw.com,rk618@aol.com Thomas J. Kennedy tkennedy@murrayfrank.com David Craig Kiernan dkiernan@jonesday.com,lwong@jonesday.com Carmen Anthony Medici cmedici@rgrdlaw.com,slandry@rgrdlaw.com Thomas Robert Merrick tmerrick@rgrdlaw.com,e_file_sd@rgrdlaw.com,e_file_sf@rgrdlaw.com Caroline Nason Mitchell cnmitchell@jonesday.com,mlandsborough@jonesday.com,ewallace@jonesday.com https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/MailList.pl?910143488907422-L_366... 4/11/2011 CAND-ECF- Page 2 of 2 Robert Allan Mittelstaedt ramittelstaedt@jonesday.com,mlandsborough@jonesday.com Brian P Murray bmurray@murrayfrank.com George A. Riley griley@omm.com,lperez@omm.com,cchiu@omm.com Elaine A. Ryan eryan@bffb.com,pjohnson@bffb.com Jacqueline Sailer jsailer@murrayfrank.com Michael Tedder Scott michaelscott@jonesday.com,amhoward@jonesday.com Craig Ellsworth Stewart cestewart@jonesday.com,mlandsborough@jonesday.com John J. Stoia , Jr jstoia@rgrdlaw.com Bonny E. Sweeney bonnys@rgrdlaw.com,christinas@rgrdlaw.com,E_file_sd@rgrdlaw.com Helen I. Zeldes helenz@zhlaw.com Manual Notice List The following is the list of attorneys who are not on the list to receive e-mail notices for this case (who therefore require manual noticing). You may wish to use your mouse to select and copy this list into your word processing program in order to create notices or labels for these recipients. (No manual recipients) https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/MailList.pl?910143488907422-L_366... 4/11/2011

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?