"The Apple iPod iTunes Anti-Trust Litigation"

Filing 753

***ERRONEOUS ENTRY, PLEASE REFER TO DOCUMENT NO. 754 *** EXHIBITS re 752 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed byApple Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2, # 2 Exhibit 3, # 3 Exhibit 4, # 4 Exhibit 5, # 5 Exhibit 6, # 6 Exhibit 7, # 7 Exhibit 8, # 8 Exhibit 9, # 9 Exhibit 11, # 10 Exhibit 12, # 11 Proposed Order)(Related document(s) 752 ) (Kiernan, David) (Filed on 1/14/2014) Modified on 1/14/2014 (jlmS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Robert A. Mittelstaedt (State Bar No. 60359)
[e-mail]
Craig E. Stewart (State Bar No. 129530)
[e-mail]
David C. Kiernan (State Bar No. 129530)
[e-mail]
Amir Q. Amiri (State Bar No. 271224)
[e-mail]
JONES DAY
555 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone:
+1.415.626.3939
Facsimile:
+1.415.875.5700
Attorneys for Defendant
APPLE INC.

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

OAKLAND DIVISION

13
14
15
16
17

THE APPLE IPOD ITUNES ANTITRUST
LITIGATION

Case No. 4:05-cv-00037 YGR
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFFS’ DAUBERT MOTION
TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN OPINION
TESTIMONY OF KEVIN M.
MURPHY AND ROBERT H. TOPEL

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[Proposed] Order
4:05-cv-00037 YGR

1

Presently before the court is Plaintiffs’ Daubert Motion to Exclude Certain Opinion

2

Testimony of Kevin M. Murphy and Robert H. Topel. Having reviewed the papers on file and

3

considered the relevant arguments, this Court hereby DENIES the motion.

4

Plaintiffs ask the Court to exclude one portion of Apple’s expert reports—the portion

5

dealing with statistical significance. Plaintiffs’ motion is based largely on the declaration of their

6

previously undisclosed expert Dr. Jeffrey M. Wooldridge. His declaration, however, directly

7

contradicts the graduate-level textbook he has authored, leading to his admission that if his new

8

opinion on “clustering” were correct, he would need to revise the textbook that he has been using

9

for years. Additionally, Dr. Wooldridge has pointed to no peer-reviewed sources corroborating

10

the opinions and theories advanced in his declaration. Such opinion testimony is invalid under

11

the Supreme Court’s precedent and the Federal Rules of Evidence. See Wagner v. County of

12

Maricopa, 673 F.3d 977, 982 (9th Cir. 2012) (an expert’s analysis should be “supported by the

13

typical Daubert factors ‒ testing, peer review and general acceptance”); Daubert v. Merrell Dow

14

Pharm., Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1318 (9th Cir. 1995) (Daubert II) (requiring expert to “point to some

15

objective source” to show conclusions are scientifically valid); Cabrera v. Cordis Corp., 134 F.3d

16

1418, 1423 (9th Cir. 1998) (explaining expert opinion unreliable where expert could not “identify

17

any peer-reviewed research justifying his conclusions”).

18

Indeed, Dr. Wooldridge appears to have inappropriately manufactured his opinions

19

specifically for purposes of litigation. See Cabrera, 134 F.3d at 1423 (expert opinion unreliable

20

where developed “expressly for the purpose of testifying”); see also Johnson v. Manitowoc Boom

21

Trucks, Inc., 484 F.3d 426, 434-35 (6th Cir. 2007) (opinions “conceived, executed, and invented

22

solely in the context of th[e] litigation” are per se inadmissible).

23

Moreover, Plaintiffs never disclosed Dr. Wooldridge testimony during the course of

24

discovery, despite the fact that the parties have litigated the topics on which he has opined for

25

over two years. This alone is grounds to exclude Dr. Wooldridge’s opinions. See Reed v. Smith

26

& Nephew, Inc., 527 F. Supp. 2d 1336, 1348 (W.D. Okla. 2007) (striking declaration of

27

undisclosed expert submitted in support of Daubert motion); see also Moore v. Napolitano, 926

28

F. Supp. 2d 8, 25 n.12 (D.D.C. 2013); Jeffries v. Centre Life Ins. Co., No. 1:02-cv-351, 2004 WL
-1-

[Proposed] Order
4:05-cv-00037 YGR

1
2

5506494 at *1 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 28, 2004).
Further, the Court finds ample evidence in the record that supports the conclusions of

3

Apple’s experts regarding the correlation of standard errors in the regressions submitted by

4

Plaintiffs’ disclosed expert, Roger G. Noll. In light of Drs. Murphy and Topel’s qualifications on

5

the issue and the volume of evidence supporting their conclusions in the academic literature, the

6

Court finds their opinions admissible under Daubert and Fed. R. Evid. 702.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: ______________, 2014

10
11

Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers

12
13

SFI-848877v1

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

[Proposed] Order
4:05-cv-00037 YGR