"The Apple iPod iTunes Anti-Trust Litigation"
Filing
706
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Apple Inc.. (Kiernan, David) (Filed on 4/13/2012)
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
Class Counsel for Plaintiffs
10
[Additional counsel appear on signature page.]
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
14
THE APPLE IPOD ITUNES ANTI-TRUST ) Lead Case No. C-05-00037-JW
)
15 LITIGATION
) CLASS ACTION
)
16
) JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE
This Document Relates To:
) STATEMENT
17
)
ALL ACTIONS.
)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
699797_1
1
In accordance with the Court’s April 2, 2012 Order, the parties jointly submit this Joint
2 Status Conference Statement.
3 I.
DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
4
No dispositive motions are pending.
5
Plaintiffs’ Position
6
It is Plaintiffs’ position that further dispositive motions by Apple are neither permitted nor
7 necessary. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (b) (“Time to File a Motion. Unless a different time is set by local
8 rule or the court orders otherwise, a party may file a motion for summary judgment at any time until
9 30 days after the close of all discovery.”) Discovery in this case closed on December 20, 2011. See,
10 e.g., July 22, 2010 Scheduling Order. The deadline for Apple to file its renewed summary judgment
11 motion was set forth in the October 28, 2010 Scheduling Order. Its renewed motion was filed
12 January 18, 2011. The Court ruled on the motion on May 19, 2011.
13
Should the Court determine that Apple is entitled to another, third, summary judgment
14 motion in this case, Plaintiffs’ request the parties meet and confer on a schedule for such a motion.
15
Apple’s Position:
16
The time for filing dispositive motions has not passed. Rule 56(b) allows a party to “file a
17 motion for summary judgment at any time until 30 days after the close of all discovery.” As
18 reflected below, expert discovery is ongoing and will not close until November 19, 2012. Nor did
19 this Court’s October 28, 2010 Scheduling Order limit Rule 56(b). That Order simply set a briefing
20 schedule for Apple’s motion seeking summary judgment on the threshold ground that Apple’s
21 software updates were not exclusionary acts as a matter of law.
22
In addition to showing exclusionary conduct, plaintiffs must prove the other elements of their
23 antitrust claim, including antitrust impact and damages. Apple’s earlier summary judgment motion
24 did not address and could not have addressed these issues because plaintiffs had not produced at that
25 time (and still have not produced) their expert reports addressed to those issues. As Rule 56(b)
26 recognizes, Apple’s motion will be ripe once plaintiffs’ produce their reports and discovery on those
27 issues is complete. And if, as Apple believes, Plaintiffs’ expert(s) will be unable to establish impact
28
699797_1
JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT - C-05-00037-JW
-1-
1 or damages, it is in the interests of all to have those issues determined by motion rather than hold an
2 unnecessary trial.
3
Apple proposes the same briefing schedule proposed for motions to exclude experts below:
4 i.e., dispositive motion due November 30, 2012, opposition due December 21, 2012, and Reply due
5 January 11, 2013.
6 II.
CLASS NOTICE
7
On March 29, 2012, the Court approved the parties joint proposal regarding notice. At this
8 time, the notice process is proceeding as scheduled. On April 5, 2012, Apple informed the notice
9 provider that it had determined that it had 8.5 million email addresses instead of the 4.2 million
10 email addresses it originally believed it possessed. The notice providers have told Plaintiffs and
11 Apple that it can still complete the notice process as originally envisioned in the joint plan and will
12 be sending out the notice in several batches over the course of six days, with the start of the email
13 portion of the notice plan set for April 24, 2012. Mailings to resellers will be sent on April 30, 2012.
14
Advertising space in Entertainment Weekly and Wired magazine has been secured. The
15 notice to be published in Entertainment Weekly will run in the May 11, 2012 edition, available on
16 newsstands May 4, 2012. The notice to be published in Wired will run in the June 2012 edition,
17 available on newsstands May 22, 2012. The planned website has been secured and is expected to go
18 live on April 23, 2012. The toll-free hotline is to go live on April 23, 2012
19 III.
SCHEDULING
20
The parties have conferred regarding a schedule for the remainder of the litigation and
21 propose the following:
22
A.
Experts
23
Plaintiffs’ expert report(s) due:
24
Service of Plaintiffs’ experts’ data and October 1 , 2012
documents:
25
26
September 28, 2012
Deposition(s) of Plaintiffs’ expert(s) to be October 26, 2012
completed
27
28
699797_1
Defendant’s expert report(s) due:
JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT - C-05-00037-JW
November 2, 2012
-2-
Service of Defendant’s experts’ data and November 5, 2012
documents:
1
2
Depositions of Defendants expert(s) to be November 14, 2012
completed:
3
4
Plaintiffs’ rebuttal report(s) due:
November 16, 2012
5
Service of
documents:
and November 19, 2012
November 30, 2012
Oppositions due:
December 21, 2012
Replies due:
7
data
Motions to exclude expert testimony due:
6
Plaintiffs
experts’
January 11, 2013
8
9
10
Hearing on motions to exclude expert testimony January 18, 2013
11
B.
12
Pretrial Practice
13
Service of proposed witness and exhibit lists:
January 7, 2013
14
Service of objections to witness and exhibit lists: January 14, 2013
15
Final exhibit lists, witness lists, jury instructions, January 21, 2013
16
voir dire questions, and verdict forms
17
Motions in limine
January 11, 2013
18
Oppositions to motions in limine
January 28, 2013
19
Replies in support of motions in limine
January 25, 2013
20
Pretrial Conference
Week of January 28, 2013
21
C.
Trial.
22
February 2013
23
Estimated length of trial: 10 days.
24 IV.
SETTLEMENT EFFORTS
25
Over the course of the case, the parties have discussed ways to resolve the litigation.
26
27
28
699797_1
JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT - C-05-00037-JW
-3-
1 DATED: April 13, 2012
2
3
4
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
JOHN J. STOIA, JR.
BONNY E. SWEENEY
THOMAS R. MERRICK
ALEXANDRA S. BERNAY
CARMEN A. MEDICI
5
6
s/Alexandra S. Bernay
[ATTORNEY SIGNATURE]
7
8
9
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619/231-1058
619/231-7423 (fax)
10
Class Counsel for Plaintiffs
11
THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM
ROY A. KATRIEL
1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 500
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: 202/625-4342
202/330-5593 (fax)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN
& BALINT, P.C.
ANDREW S. FRIEDMAN
FRANCIS J. BALINT, JR.
ELAINE A. RYAN
TODD D. CARPENTER
2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1000
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Telephone: 602/274-1100
602/274-1199 (fax)
BRAUN LAW GROUP, P.C.
MICHAEL D. BRAUN
10680 West Pico Blvd., Suite 280
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Telephone: 310/836-6000
310/836-6010 (fax)
23
24
25
26
MURRAY FRANK LLP
BRIAN P. MURRAY
275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: 212/682-1818
212/682-1892 (fax)
27
28
699797_1
JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT - C-05-00037-JW
-4-
1
4
GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
MICHAEL GOLDBERG
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: 310/201-9150
310/201-9160 (fax)
5
Additional Counsel for Plaintiffs
6 DATED: April 13, 2012
JONES DAY
ROBERT A. MITTELSTAEDT
CRAIG E. STEWART
DAVID C. KIERNAN
2
3
7
8
9
s/ David C. Kiernan
DAVID C. KIERNAN
10
11
12
555 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: 415/626-3939
415/875-5700 (fax)
13
Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
699797_1
JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT - C-05-00037-JW
-5-
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?