"The Apple iPod iTunes Anti-Trust Litigation"

Filing 757

RESPONSE (re 751 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and to Exclude Expert Testimony of Roger G. Noll; Plaintiffs' Responsive Separate Statement in Support of ) filed byApple Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Amir Q. Amiri in Support of Apple's Response to Plaintiffs' Admin. Motion to File Under Seal, # 2 Proposed Order by Apple Granting Plaintiffs' Admin. Motion to File Under Seal, # 3 Exhibit - Apple's (Proposed) Redactions to Plaintiffs' Exhibit Nos. 1-3, and 54, # 4 Exhibit - Apple's (Proposed) Excerpt to Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 22, # 5 Exhibit - Apple's (Proposed) Redactions to Plaintiffs' Exhibit Nos. 9-11; 14; 48; 50-53; and 62, # 6 Apple's (Proposed) Redactions to Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of its Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, etc., # 7 Apple's (Proposed) Redactions to Plaintiffs' Responsive Separate Statement in Support of its Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, etc.)(Amiri, Amir) (Filed on 1/21/2014)

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. 215335)
[e-mail]
Amir Q. Amiri (State Bar No. 271224)
[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

OAKLAND DIVISION

13
14
15

THE APPLE iPOD iTUNES ANTI-TRUST
LITIGATION.

Case No. C 05-00037 YGR
[CLASS ACTION]

16

DECLARATION OF AMIR Q. AMIRI IN
SUPPORT OF APPLE INC.’S
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

17
18
19
20

1.

I am an associate in the law firm of Jones Day, located at 555 California Street,

21

26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104. I submit this declaration in support of Apple’s Response

22

to Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to for leave to file under Seal Memorandum of Law in

23

Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and to Exclude Expert Testimony of

24

Roger G. Noll; Plaintiffs’ Responsive Separate Statement in support thereof; and Exhibits 1-4, 9-

25

17, 20-29, 31-46, 48-54, 56, and 58-62 to the Declaration of Bonny E. Sweeney in support thereof

26

(ECF No. 751). The facts stated in this declaration are true and based upon my own personal

27

knowledge, and if called to testify to them, I would competently do so.

28

2.

The relief requested in Apple’s response in support of Plaintiffs’ Administrative
-1-

Decl. ISO Response to
Administrative Motion to Seal
C 05-00037 YGR

1

Motion and the proposed order provided to the Court is necessary and narrowly tailored to protect

2

Apple's confidential business information. Portions of Plaintiffs' Opposition, the Separate

3

Statement, and certain portions of and exhibits to the Sweeney Declaration contain highly

4

confidential and commercially sensitive business information, including confidential details of

5

Apple’s FairPlay digital rights management (DRM) technology and updates to that technology;

6

inquiries Apple received from customers that reflect personal information of the customers and

7

confidential and proprietary information regarding how Apple responds to such inquiries; iPod

8

and iTunes Store sales and market research; confidential and sensitive contract terms and

9

communications with record labels and other Apple business partners; decisions by Apple

10

employees regarding Apple's business strategy; and confidential pricing policies and transaction

11

data relating to the sale of Apple products. Apple disclosed this information pursuant to the

12

Protective Order in this case, keeps this information highly confidential, and does not disclose it

13

to the public. As demonstrated in the attached declarations, the disclosure of this information

14

would harm Apple.

15
16
17

3.

Motions to seal similar information have been granted previously in this case. See,

e.g., ECF Nos. 184, 247, 291, 336, 340, 353, 422, 527.
4.

Indeed, many of the exhibits to the Sweeney Declaration were previously

18

submitted under seal, which sealing was granted, in connection with Plaintiffs’ Opposition to

19

Apple’s Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment. For the Court’s convenience, the table below

20

cross-references the exhibit numbers from Plaintiffs’ previous filing with the exhibit numbers to

21

the Sweeney Declaration filed in support of Plaintiffs’ current opposition brief:

22

Current Exhibit Number

Previous Exhibit Number

23

(See ECF No. 750-20)

(See ECF No. 515)

24

5

1

25

6

2

26

7

3

27

8

4

28

9

5 (excerpts)
-2-

Decl. ISO Response to
Administrative Motion to Seal
C 05-00037 YGR

1

Current Exhibit Number

Previous Exhibit Number

(See ECF No. 750-20)

(See ECF No. 515)

10

7 (excerpts)

11

8 (excerpts)

13

9

14

10

15

40

17

11

19

13

20

20

21

21

23

22

25

25

26

26

27

55

28

23

36

28

19

37

32

20

38

33

21

39

34

22

40

35

23

42

38

24

43

41

25

44

42

26

45

43

27

46

44

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

28

5.

Additionally, other exhibits are substantially similar to those previously submitted
-3-

Decl. ISO Response to
Administrative Motion to Seal
C 05-00037 YGR

1

and sealed by the Court. For example, Dr. David Martin’s opening and rebuttal report, filed as

2

Exhibits 4 and 33, respectively, to the Sweeney Declaration are substantially similar and concern

3

the same subject matter as what was previously filed as the Declaration of Dr. David Martin in

4

Opposition to Apple’s Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment. See ECF No. 514. This

5

declaration was sealed by the Court. See ECF No. 527. Further the compendium of customer

6

inquiries and Apple’s responses thereto, filed as Exhibit 35 to the Sweeney Declaration, are

7

similar in substance to what were previously filed as Exhibits 50-52 in opposition to Apple’s

8

Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment. See ECF No. 515. These previously-filed exhibits

9

were also sealed by the Court. See ECF No. 527. As demonstrated in the attached declarations,

10
11

the disclosure of this information would harm Apple.
6.

Further, I have personally reviewed the expert reports and expert and Fed. R. Civ.

12

P. 30(b)(6) depositions that are attached as Exhibits 1-4, 9-11, 14, 22, 33, 48, 50-53, 54 and 62.

13

Portions of each contain highly confidential and commercially sensitive business information,

14

including confidential details of Apple’s DRM technology and updates to that technology;

15

inquiries Apple received from customers that reflect personal information of the customers and

16

confidential and proprietary information regarding how Apple responds to such inquiries; iPod

17

and iTunes Store sales and market research; and/or confidential and sensitive contract terms and

18

communications with record labels and other Apple business partners; decisions by Apple

19

employees regarding Apple's business strategy and confidential pricing strategies and transaction

20

data relating to the sale of Apple products, as described in the attached declarations. Apple

21

disclosed this information pursuant to the Protective Order in this case, keeps this information

22

highly confidential, and does not disclose it to the public. As demonstrated in the attached

23

declarations, the disclosure of this information would harm Apple. Accordingly, Apple has

24

provided redactions to the expert reports and deposition excerpts consistent with a narrow sealing

25

order to preserve Apple’s confidentiality.

26
27
28

7.

Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Eddy Cue

filed January 22, 2010, ECF No. 318.
8.

Attached as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Jeffrey
-4-

Decl. ISO Response to
Administrative Motion to Seal
C 05-00037 YGR

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Robbin filed January 22, 2010, ECF No. 328.
9.

Attached as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Eddy Cue

filed March 29, 2010, ECF No. 350.
10.

Attached as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Eddy Cue

filed December 23, 2010, ECF No. 409.
11.

Attached as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Mark

Buckley filed January 13, 2011, ECF No. 454.
12.

Attached as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Mark

Buckley filed January 24, 2011, ECF No. 494.
Executed this 17th day of January, 2014 in San Francisco, California.

11
12

_/s/Amir Q. Amiri________
Amir Q. Amiri

13
14
15

SFI-849330v1

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-

Decl. ISO Response to
Administrative Motion to Seal
C 05-00037 YGR