"In re MagSafe Apple Power Adapter Litigation."

Filing 122

Download PDF
Kitagawa, Jr et al v. Apple, Inc. Doc. 122 1 LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP 2 BONNY E. SWEENEY (176174) GREGORY S. WESTON (239944) 3 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 4 Telephone: 619/231-1058 619/231-7423 (fax) 5 bonnys@lerachlaw.com gweston@lerachlaw.com 6 THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM 7 ROY A. KATRIEL (pro hac vice) 1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 500 8 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: 202/625-4342 9 202/330-5593 (fax) rak@katriellaw.com 10 Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs 11 12 13 14 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Lead Case No. C-05-00037-JW CLASS ACTION DECLARATION OF BONNY E. SWEENEY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 7-11 THE APPLE IPOD ITUNES ANTI-TRUST 16 LITIGATION 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS. Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 I, Bonny E. Sweeney, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney admitted to practice before all of the state and federal courts of the 3 State of California. I am a partner at the law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & 4 Robbins LLP, co-lead counsel for Plaintiffs in this action. I have personal knowledge of the matters 5 set forth herein and, if called as a witness, I could and would testify competently thereto. 6 2. Plaintiffs met and conferred with Defendants in an effort to reach an agreement over 7 the scope of discovery in the present action. My firm on January 17, 2007, served requests for 8 production of documents, interrogatories, requests for admissions, and two 30(b)(6) deposition 9 notices. I subsequently met and conferred with Defendant's counsel and offered on February 23, 10 2007 to defer until after class certification most of Plaintiffs' requests for production, all of 11 Plaintiffs' requests for admission, all but one interrogatory, and to narrow the subject matter of both 12 30(b)(6) deposition notices. In subsequent negotiations and in a letter I sent on June 18, 2007, 13 Plaintiffs offered narrower versions of several of requests for production of documents, offered to 14 defer one 30(b)(6) deposition, offered to withdraw the second 30(b)(6) request if Defendant would 15 produce company organizational charts, and offered to defer the one remaining interrogatory that 16 Plaintiffs had not already offered to defer. 17 3. As of today, Defendant has not produced any documents in response to the 18 January 17, 2007 request for production of documents, have refused Plaintiffs' offer that 19 organizational charts be produced as a substitute for a 30(b)(6) deposition relating to Defendant's 20 organizational structure, and have only agreed to substantially comply with one of Plaintiffs' 21 requests for production. 22 4. In total, after over nearly two and a half years of litigation, Defendant has only 23 produced 66 pages of documents, 58 pages of which were simply print-outs of documents on 24 Defendant's public webpage. 25 5. Defendant's position is that the November 21, 2006 case management order entered 26 in the Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc. action ("Slattery/Charoensak action") applies to the 27 present action, and has proposed that Plaintiffs agree to a stipulation on the same terms as those of 28 the Slattery/Charoensak action case management order. Plaintiffs, based on their experience during DECL BONNY E. SWEENEY IN SUPPORT OF PLTFFS' MOTION FOR ADMIN RELIEF PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 7-11 - C-05-00037-JW -1- 1 the time they informally offered to proceed as if discovery were bifurcated, are unwilling to so 2 stipulate. Defendants also rejected Plaintiffs' request that along with class certification issues, 3 discovery proceed on preliminary topics such as Defendant's organizational structure, and on 4 requests that impose at most a de minimis burden on the parties. For this reason, Plaintiffs submit a 5 Proposed Order Governing Discovery and an Alternative Proposed Order Governing Discovery 6 rather than a stipulation agreed upon by both parties. 7 6. In its discovery to Plaintiffs, Defendant has demanded information that goes beyond 8 the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23. For example, Defendant served discovery on Plaintiff 9 Melanie Tucker demanding that she produce receipts for all CDs and DVDs that she has purchased 10 since January 1, 2001, "including credit card receipts and statements," (First Set of Requests for 11 Production of Documents ("Req.") No. 3), that Tucker provide to Defendant for inspection her own 12 iPod (Req. No. 22), her computer hard drive (Req. No. 24) and every CD and DVD she or any 13 member of her family owns (Req. No. 25). Further, Defendant requested the same of "all persons 14 acting or purporting on her behalf, including her attorneys" and her and her attorneys' "spouse, 15 partner, significant other, children, family members and anyone living in YOUR household." 16 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is 17 true and correct. Executed this 9th day of July, 2007, at San Diego, California. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECL BONNY E. SWEENEY IN SUPPORT OF PLTFFS' MOTION FOR ADMIN RELIEF PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 7-11 - C-05-00037-JW -2S:\CasesSD\Apple Tying\DEC00043026.DOC s/ BONNY E. SWEENEY BONNY E. SWEENEY 1 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on July 9, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the 3 Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the e-mail addresses 4 denoted on the attached Electronic Mail Notice List, and I hereby certify that I have mailed the 5 foregoing document or paper via the United States Postal Service to the non-CM/ECF participants 6 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 July 9, 2007. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 s/ BONNY E. SWEENEY BONNY E. SWEENEY LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-3301 Telephone: 619/231-1058 619/231-7423 (fax) E-mail:BonnyS@LerachLaw.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. David Braun service@braunlawgroup.com Michael S. Friedman rcreech@bffb.com,afriedman@bffb.com Andrew A. Katriel rak@katriellaw.com,rk618@aol.com Roy Nason Mitchell cnmitchell@jonesday.com,mlandsborough@jonesday.com,ybennett@jonesday.com Caroline Allan Mittelstaedt ramittelstaedt@jonesday.com,ybennett@jonesday.com Robert P Murray bmurray@rabinlaw.com Brian Sailer jsailer@murrayfrank.com Jacqueline Richard Sand , Esq invalidaddress@invalidaddress.com Adam J. Stoia , Jr jstoia@lerachlaw.com John Strong tstrong@jonesday.com,dharmon@jonesday.com Tracy E. Sweeney bsweeney@lerachlaw.com,E_file_sd@lerachlaw.com,tturner@lerachlaw.com Bonny Steven Weston gweston@lerachlaw.com Gregory 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. Francis Joseph Balint , Jr https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/MailList.pl?622469229890884-L_390_0-1 7/9/2007 CAND-ECF Page 2 of 2 Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint, P.C 2901 North Central Avenue Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85012-3311 Todd David Carpenter Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman, & Balint 2901 N. Central Avenue Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Elaine A. Ryan Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint, P.C 2901 N. Central Avenue Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85012 https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/MailList.pl?622469229890884-L_390_0-1 7/9/2007

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?