"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)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Robert A. Mittelstaedt #60359
[e-mail]
Craig E. Stewart #129530
[e-mail]
David C. Kiernan #215335
[e-mail]
Michael T. Scott #255282
[e-mail]
JONES DAY
555 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
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)