Lalo v. Apple, Inc et al

Filing 105

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Initial Joint Case Management Statement filed by Apple, Inc. (Charlson, Michael) (Filed on 5/18/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Michael L. Charlson (Bar No. 122125)
Maren J. Clouse (Bar No. 228726)
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
525 University Avenue, 4th Floor
Palo Alto, California 94301
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Christopher Wolf (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
Columbia Square
555 Thirteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
[e-mail]
Clayton C. James (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
One Tabor Center, Suite 1500
1200 Seventeenth Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
APPLE INC., a California corporation
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

18
19
20
21
22

In re iPhone Application Litigation

Case No. CV-10-5878 LHK (PSG)
INITIAL JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
STATEMENT

23

Date: May 25, 2011
Time: 2:00 p.m.
Place: Courtroom 4

24

The Honorable Lucy H. Koh

25
26
27
28
H OGAN L OVEL LS US
LLP
ATT ORNE YS AT LA W
PALO AL TO

INITIAL JOINT CASE MGMT. STMT.
Case No. CV 10-5878 LHK

1

Plaintiffs and Defendants Apple Inc., AdMob Inc., Flurry, Inc., MobClix, Inc., Pinch

2

Media, Inc., Millennial Media Inc., and AdMarvel, Inc. (“Defendants”)1 hereby submit this Initial

3

Joint Case Management Statement.

4

The Parties address below as many of the issues in these consolidated actions as they

5

believe they can at this early stage. Plaintiffs believe that the pending motion before the Judicial

6

Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the “Panel”) to transfer these and other related cases filed

7

around the country to the Northern District of California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial

8

treatment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 (the “Panel proceedings”) should not impact the ability to

9

meaningfully discuss most of the points of this case management statement, especially in light of

10

the fact that no progress whatsoever has been made in any other jurisdiction and many have either

11

agreed to a stay or have not been served. Reasonable case management can ensure that the case

12

can move forward, and the Court can set meaningful dates without creating the risk of a

13

duplication of efforts.

14

Defendants believe that the ability to provide certain detail is constrained at this juncture

15

by the Panel proceedings. While the Parties appearing on this Statement have endorsed transfer

16

of the various lawsuits to this Court, parties to the lawsuits pending in Alabama and Puerto Rico

17

have urged that the cases be transferred to those districts. Even if there were unanimity about

18

venue, the Panel could elect to transfer the cases as it sees fit. Although a hearing on the motion

19

to transfer is not yet on calendar, the Parties anticipate that the matter will be heard at the Panel’s

20

scheduled July 28, 2011 session in San Francisco and that a decision will issue shortly thereafter.

21

To avoid potential replication of activity, or activity that would become unnecessary depending

22

upon the Panel’s decision and resulting coordination or consolidation, Defendants believe that it

23

will be efficient for both the Parties and the Court to defer certain issues until the Panel acts, as

24

discussed below.

25

1.

26

All parties have been served. Numerous parties to the pre-consolidation actions have not

JURISDICTION AND SERVICE

27
1

28
H OGAN L OVEL LS US
LLP
ATT ORNE YS AT LA W
PALO AL TO

The Consolidated Complaint names other defendants who have not yet appeared in these
actions and are therefore not included in this Statement.
-1-

INITIAL JOINT CASE MGMT. STMT.
Case No. CV 10-5878 LHK

1
2

been included in the Consolidated Complaint after entering into tolling and discovery agreements.
Defendants will argue as part of their anticipated motions to dismiss that Plaintiffs have

3

failed to allege cognizable injury such that these actions present no case or controversy under

4

Article III of the U.S. Constitution and that this Court lacks jurisdiction for this reason.

5

Defendants otherwise agree that subject matter jurisdiction properly lies in this Court.

6

2.

FACTS

7

The Consolidated Complaint alleges that certain software applications (“apps”) that can be

8

downloaded by users from Apple’s Internet App Store to work on Apple iPhone, iPad, or iPod

9

touch devices capture and misuse personal identifying information of device users by transmitting

10

information, including the Unique Device Identifier (“UDID”) associated with each device. In

11

addition, the Consolidated Complaint alleges that geolocation histories are created and stored

12

unencrypted on user devices. The Consolidated Complaint further alleges that Apple “designs its

13

mobile devices to be readily accessible to ad networks and Internet metrics companies to track

14

consumers and access their personal information. … These companies, by helping finance third

15

party apps, gain access to consumers’ mobile devices to collect personal information they use to

16

track and profile consumers, such as consumers’ cellphone numbers, address books, unique

17

device identifiers, and geolocation histories ….” Compl. ¶ 6. The Consolidated Complaint

18

asserts causes of action against Apple and eight ad networks and Internet metrics companies.

19

The Consolidated Complaint is brought by five named Plaintiffs who purport to represent

20

a class of all U.S. residents who have downloaded an app from the App Store on an Apple device

21

from December 1, 2008 through April 21, 2011. Compl. ¶ 99.

22

Defendants do not at this point in the litigation admit or deny any allegation or concede

23

Plaintiffs’ ability to demonstrate the truth of any allegation. Without limiting the generality of

24

this statement, Defendants dispute that users’ information was misused or collected or used

25

without authorization, or that users were harmed by the practices alleged in the Consolidated

26

Complaint.

27

3.

28

The Consolidated Complaint claims that the alleged collection and misuse of user

H OGAN L OVEL LS US
LLP
ATT ORNE YS AT LA W
PALO AL TO

LEGAL ISSUES

-2-

INITIAL JOINT CASE MGMT. STMT.
Case No. CV 10-5878 LHK

1

information from the devices constitutes violations of various statutes and common law principles

2

concerning personal privacy and consumer protection. The Consolidated Complaint alleges

3

causes of action against all Defendants for violations of: the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18

4

U.S.C. § 1030, et seq.; the Computer Crime Law, Cal. Penal Code § 502, et seq.; Trespass to

5

Chattels; the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civil Code § 1750, et seq.; and the Unfair

6

Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200, et seq. The Consolidated Complaint also

7

alleges three causes of action against only Apple, for negligence, violation of the Consumer Legal

8

Remedies Act, Cal. Civil Code § 1750, et seq., and breach of the implied covenant of good faith

9

and fair dealing; and one cause of action against only the other Defendants, for unjust enrichment.

10

Defendants believe that Plaintiffs’ allegations are legally insufficient for myriad reasons,

11

including their failure to allege standing, harm, and causation, and are vulnerable to meritorious

12

legal defenses, including defenses based, among other things, on federal statute and Plaintiffs’

13

own authorization of the alleged misconduct. Defendants also expect to challenge class

14

certification based on typicality and commonality grounds, among others.

15

Defendants believe that in the event that additional actions are consolidated with these

16

actions as a result of the Panel proceedings, there may be changes to the allegations, defendants,

17

proposed class, or named plaintiffs that will alter the legal issues currently raised by the

18

Consolidated Complaint.

19

Plaintiffs do not anticipate the need to amend or alter the allegations irrespective of the

20

actions of the Panel. Plaintiffs see the other cases pending before the Panel as either unveiled

21

copycat actions or actions that state claims narrower than the Consolidated Complaint.

22
23

A more specific definition of outstanding legal issues will be possible following
disposition of anticipated motions to dismiss.

24

4.

MOTIONS

25

On May 5, 2011, Apple filed a Motion to Stay all proceedings in these actions pending

26

resolution of its motion pending before the Panel to transfer related actions to the Northern

27

District of California for consolidation or coordination pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. Pursuant to

28

the Court’s sua sponte Order Setting Hearing and Briefing Schedule (Dkt. No. 74), that motion is

H OGAN L OVEL LS US
LLP
ATT ORNE YS AT LA W
PALO AL TO

-3-

INITIAL JOINT CASE MGMT. STMT.
Case No. CV 10-5878 LHK

1

scheduled to be heard on May 25, 2011, concurrently with the scheduled Case Management

2

Conference.

3

Apple filed a Motion to Enlarge Time seeking additional time until June 13, 2011 in

4

which to respond to the Consolidated Complaint (Dkt. No. 93), which Plaintiffs oppose (Dkt. No.

5

97). Unless the Court grants the Motion to Enlarge Time, the Court’s April 7, 2011 Order

6

Regarding Case Schedule and Case Management (Dkt. No. 66) (“CMO No. 1”), would require

7

Apple to file a motion to dismiss on May 23, 2011, two days before Apple’s Motion to Stay is

8

heard. Plaintiffs have agreed to give defendants newly named, or defendants previously named

9

but that did not previously appear in the pre-consolidation actions,2 until June 13, 2011 to respond

10

to the Consolidated Complaint. If Apple’s Motion to Stay is granted, no party would need to

11

respond to the Consolidated Complaint until after the Panel proceedings are resolved.

12

Defendants expect to file motions to dismiss. The Parties believe that further motion

13

practice is likely, including motions directed to class certification and dispositive motions. It is

14

also possible that matters will arise during discovery that may require resolution by the Court.

15

5.

AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS

16

Plaintiffs believe there may be additional advertising networks and metrics providers who

17

would be appropriate defendants. Plaintiffs intend to focus early discovery on identifying any

18

such additional parties. In addition, there may be a need to bring several of the defendants subject

19

to a tolling agreement back into the litigation. Plaintiffs would plan to add any new defendants

20

prior to moving for class certification so long as needed discovery has been provided. Plaintiffs

21

believe that any further amendment of the Consolidated Complaint can be complete within 120

22

days after a ruling on class certification. Defendants reserve their rights to object, if appropriate,

23

to Plaintiffs’ efforts to amend the Consolidated Complaint.

24

6.

EVIDENCE PRESERVATION

25

The Parties each represent that they are complying in good faith with their obligations to

26
2

27
28
H OGAN L OVEL LS US
LLP
ATT ORNE YS AT LA W
PALO AL TO

These “New Defendants” are AdMob, MobClix, Pinch Media, TrafficMarketplace.com,
Millennial Media Inc., AdMarvel, Inc., and Quattro. Plaintiffs have also agreed, subject to the
approval of the Court, to give Flurry until June 13, 2011 to respond to the Consolidated
Complaint.
-4-

INITIAL JOINT CASE MGMT. STMT.
Case No. CV 10-5878 LHK

1

preserve potentially relevant documents. Plaintiffs believe that more specific discussions about

2

the scope of document preservation activity, including electronic discovery, record management

3

and destruction practices, and any related instructions or correspondence with potential or actual

4

custodians, are needed but should be deferred until all defendants are available to participate.

5
6

Defendants each have taken and are taking appropriate steps to ensure the preservation of
evidence related to the matters alleged in the Consolidated Complaint.

7

7.

8

CMO No. 1 provides that Apple and Flurry are to provide initial disclosures on June 22,

9

DISCLOSURES

2011. New Defendants are to provide initial disclosures by July 6, 2011. It is Defendants’

10

position that the Parties’ initial disclosure obligations would be stayed pending resolution of the

11

Panel proceedings if Apple’s Motion to Stay is granted. Plaintiffs believe that disclosure

12

obligations should be unaffected by any stay.

13

8.

DISCOVERY

14

CMO No. 1 provides that Plaintiffs will not serve discovery until after the May 25, 2011

15

Case Management Conference, and no discovery has been served. Plaintiffs desire to move

16

forward with limited document discovery and believe that discovery narrowly tailored to the issue

17

of contracts between Parties and identification of additional parties would be appropriate during

18

the pendency of the Panel proceedings and ensure no duplication of efforts. If additional

19

discovery is appropriate after the exchange of initial disclosures, the Parties will meet and confer

20

to discuss discovery issues and attempt to ensure they are not burdensome. In addition to merits

21

discovery, Defendants expect to propound discovery requests to the named Plaintiffs focused on

22

standing (or lack thereof) and the propriety of class certification. Defendants’ position, however,

23

is that both class and merits discovery would be stayed if the Court grants Apple’s Motion to

24

Stay.

25

9.

26

Plaintiffs believe this action is maintainable as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)

27
28
H OGAN L OVEL LS US
LLP
ATT ORNE YS AT LA W
PALO AL TO

CLASS ACTIONS

and (b)(2) and (b)(3), and Plaintiffs provide the following information:
Class Definition – The action is brought on behalf of the following Class initially defined
-5-

INITIAL JOINT CASE MGMT. STMT.
Case No. CV 10-5878 LHK

1

as:
All persons residing in the United States who have downloaded software
from the App Store on a mobile device that runs Apple’s iOS, (iPhone, iPad
and/or iPod Touch), from December 1, 2008 to the date of the filing of this
Complaint.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

The “Class Period” is December 1, 2008 to the present.
Numerosity – While the precise number of Class members is unknown to Plaintiffs at
this time, Plaintiffs estimate that the Class consists of millions of members.
Common Questions – There are many questions of law and fact common to Plaintiffs
and the Class Members, and those questions predominate over any questions that may affect
individual Class Members. Common questions for the Class include, but are not limited to the
following:
a. whether Defendants, without authorization, tracked and compiled information to
which Class Members enjoyed rights of possession superior to those of Defendants;
b. whether Defendants, without authorization, created personally identifiable profiles of
Class Members;
c. Whether Defendants violated: (i) the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. §
1030; (ii) California Business and Professions Code § 17500; (iii) California Business
and Professions Code § 17200; (iv) the California Computer Crime Law, Penal Code §
502; and (v) other violations of common law.
d. Whether Defendants misappropriated valuable information assets of Class Members;
e. Whether Apple violated its own Terms and Privacy Policies by sharing Plaintiffs’
personal information with App developers, third-party advertisers, and online tracking
companies;
f. Whether Defendants created or caused or facilitated the creation of personally
identifiable consumer profiles of Class Members;
g. Whether Defendants continue to retain and/or sell, valuable information assets from
and about Class Members;
h. What uses of such information were exercised and continue to be exercised by

28
H OGAN L OVEL LS US
LLP
ATT ORNE YS AT LA W
PALO AL TO

-6-

INITIAL JOINT CASE MGMT. STMT.
Case No. CV 10-5878 LHK

1
2

Defendants;
i. Whether Defendants breached their contracts, and if so, the appropriate measure of

3

damages and remedies against Defendants for such breaches;

4

j. Whether Defendants invaded the privacy of Class Members; and

5

k. Whether Defendants have been unjustly enriched.

6

Typicality – Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the Class. Plaintiffs and all Class

7

members were users of Apple devices and customers of the App Store during the Class Period.

8
9
10

Adequacy – Plaintiffs have no interests adverse or antagonistic to those of the Class and
have retained competent and experienced class counsel to prosecute the action.
Superiority – A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and

11

efficient adjudication of this controversy because joinder of all members is impracticable.

12

Furthermore, as the damages suffered by individual Class members may be relatively small, the

13

expense and burden of individual litigation makes it impossible for members of the Class to

14

individually redress the wrongs done to them. There will be no difficulty in the management of

15

this case as a class action.

16

Additionally, the Class may be certified because:

17



the prosecution of separate actions by the individual members of the Class would

18

create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudication with respect to individual Class

19

members which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants;

20



the prosecution of separate actions by individual Class members would create a risk of

21

adjudications with respect to them that would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of

22

the interests of other Class members not parties to the adjudications, or substantially

23

impair or impede their ability to protect their interests; and

24



Apple and the other Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally

25

applicable to the Class, thereby making appropriate final and injunctive relief with

26

respect to the members of the Class as a whole.

27
28
H OGAN L OVEL LS US
LLP
ATT ORNE YS AT LA W
PALO AL TO

Barring substantial delays caused by discovery disputes, Plaintiffs anticipate bringing their
motion for class certification within 120 days after the filing of responsive pleadings by all
-7-

INITIAL JOINT CASE MGMT. STMT.
Case No. CV 10-5878 LHK

1

Defendants.

2

Defendants intend to take discovery focused on facts relevant to class certification.

3

Without prejudging the outcome of that discovery, Defendants anticipate that they may challenge

4

class certification through a preemptive motion.

5

10.

RELATED CASES

6

On April 19, 2011, Apple filed with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation a motion

7

to transfer several related actions to the United States District Court for the Northern District of

8

California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial treatment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407. In

9

addition to the four actions consolidated in this litigation, the following cases have been identified

10

to the Panel as related:

11



12

Christina Jenkins and Jessica Veffer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 11-CV-01828 LHK (N.D. Cal.)3



Leah Thompson and Patricia Harp, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 11-CV-03009-PKH (W.D. Ark.)



Natasha Acosta and Dolma Acevedo-Crespo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Apple Inc., Gogii, Inc., Pandora Media, Inc., Backflip Studios, Inc.,
The Weather Channel, Inc., Dictionary.com, LLC, Outfit7 Ltd., Room Candy, Inc., and
Sunstorm Interactive, Inc., Case No. 11-CV-01326-JAF (D.P.R.)



Marcia Burke and William C. Burke, III, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. Apple Inc.; Pandora Media, Inc.; and Does 1-10, Case No. 11-CV01376 (N.D. Ala.)



Jarrett Ammer, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Apple, Incl.;
Pandora Media, Inc.; and Backflip Studios, Inc., Case No. 11-CV-02841-JFM (S.D.N.Y.)



Kevin Burwick and Heather Kimbrel, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Apple, Inc. and Pandora Media, Inc. and Does 1-10, Case No. 11-CV-03450JFW (C.D. Cal.)



Lymaris M. Rivera Diaz, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Apple, Inc., Pandora Media, Inc., The Weather Channel, Inc., and Does 1-10, Case No.
11-CV-1433-FAB (D.P.R.)

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Apple intends to promptly file tag-along notices notifying the Panel of the following related
actions:


26
27
28
H OGAN L OVEL LS US
LLP
ATT ORNE YS AT LA W
PALO AL TO

Arun Gupta, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Apple Inc., Case
No. 3:11-cv-02110-WHA (N.D. Cal.)



25

Cynthia O’Flaherty v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:11-cv-00359-MJR-DGW (S.D. Ill.)

3

Per the Court’s May 6, 2011 Related Case Order (Dkt. No. 76), the Court determined that the
Jenkins action is related to these actions, and the Jenkins action was reassigned to this Court. As
of this filing, the Court has not acted to consolidate the Jenkins action into this proceeding.
-8-

INITIAL JOINT CASE MGMT. STMT.
Case No. CV 10-5878 LHK

1



Eric Snyder and Zachary Richardet v. Apple Inc., Case No. 4:11-cv-00784-RWS (E.D.
Mo.)

2



Juan Carlos Velez-Colon v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:11-c-v-02270-PSG (N.D. Cal.)

3



Sharon Leslie Normand, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Apple Inc., Case No. 11-2317-HRL (N.D. Cal.)

4



William Moylan, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Apple Inc.,
Case No. 1:11-cv-03268-RWG (N.D. Ill.)

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

As explained in Apple’s Motion to Stay, Apple expects that the Panel will grant its motion to
transfer these actions, and it has suggested that the transfer be to the Northern District of
California; that decision is anticipated within three months’ time.
Apple intends to file an Administrative Motion to Relate the Gupta, Colon, and Normand
cases to these actions. Defendant Flurry, Inc. filed on May 11, 2011 an Administrative Motion to
Relate the King, et al. v. Google, et al. case (Dkt. No. 80) to these actions.
11.

Plaintiffs seek the following relief:
A.

17
18
19

declare that Defendants’ actions violate the statutes and common-law
jurisprudence set forth above;

15
16

RELIEF

B.

award injunctive and equitable relief as applicable to the Class mutatis mutandis,
including:
i.

prohibiting Defendants from engaging in the acts alleged above;

ii.

requiring Defendants to provide reasonable notice and choice to
consumers regarding Defendants’ data collection, profiling, merger, and

20

deanonymization activities;

21
22

iii.

whomever the Court deems appropriate all of Defendants’ ill-gotten

23

gains;

24
25

iv.

through the acts alleged above;

27

H OGAN L OVEL LS US
LLP
ATT ORNE YS AT LA W
PALO AL TO

requiring Defendants to delete all data from and about Plaintiffs and
Class Members that it collected and/or acquired from third parties

26

28

requiring Defendants to disgorge to Plaintiffs and Class Members or to

v.

requiring Defendants to provide Plaintiffs and other Class Members
-9-

INITIAL JOINT CASE MGMT. STMT.
Case No. CV 10-5878 LHK

1

reasonable means to decline, permanently, participation in

2

Defendants’ collection of data from and about them;

3

vi.

awarding Plaintiffs and Class Members full restitution of all

4

benefits wrongfully acquired by Defendants through the wrongful

5

conduct alleged above; and

6

vii.

ordering an accounting and constructive trust to be imposed on the

7

data from and about Plaintiffs and Class Members and on funds or

8

other assets obtained by unlawful means as alleged above, to avoid

9

dissipation, fraudulent transfers, and/or concealment of such assets

10
11

by Defendants;
C.

12
13

Class Members in an amount to be determined at trial;
D.

14
15

award damages, including statutory damages where applicable, to Plaintiffs and

award restitution against Defendants for all money to which Plaintiffs and the
Class are entitled in equity;

E.

restrain, by preliminary and permanent injunction, Defendants, its officers, agents,

16

servants, employees, and attorneys, and those participating with them in active

17

concert, from identifying Plaintiffs and Class Members online, whether by

18

personal or pseudonymous identifiers, and from monitoring, accessing, collecting,

19

transmitting, and merging with data from other sources any information from or

20

about Plaintiff and Class Members;

21

F.

award Plaintiffs and the Class their reasonable litigation expenses and attorneys’

22

fees; pre- and post-judgment interest to the extent allowable; restitution;

23

disgorgement and other equitable relief as the Court deems proper; compensatory

24

damages sustained by Plaintiffs and the Class; statutory damages, including

25

punitive damages; and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting Defendant from

26

engaging in the conduct and practices complained of herein.

27
28
H OGAN L OVEL LS US
LLP
ATT ORNE YS AT LA W
PALO AL TO

Defendants deny that Plaintiffs or the class they purport to represent is entitled to any
relief based on the claims purportedly asserted in the Consolidated Complaint.
- 10 -

INITIAL JOINT CASE MGMT. STMT.
Case No. CV 10-5878 LHK

1

12.

2

Plaintiffs believe that ADR generally, and private mediation specifically, can be

3

particularly productive at even the early stages of a litigation so long as the parties have a good

4

understanding of the factual background of the claims being litigated and all parties are willing to

5

engage in the process. Plaintiffs believe they can engage in meaningful mediation at this juncture

6

and do not believe the procedural posture is an impediment. However, doing so with unwilling

7

defendants is unlikely to result in success and, as set forth below, Defendants indicate that they

8

believe discussions are premature at this time.

9

SETTLEMENT AND ADR

Defendants do not believe that it is possible to state actionable claims based on the facts

10

and circumstances alleged here. Accordingly, Defendants do not believe that settlement

11

discussions would be appropriate at this time, given the serious challenges to the viability of the

12

Consolidated Complaint that are expected. Moreover, with Panel proceedings pending and

13

uncertainty concerning what actions, parties, and allegations (if any) will be before the Court,

14

Defendants believe that discussion of alternative dispute resolution or other settlement

15

discussions is premature at this time.

16

13.

17

The Parties decline to consent to have a Magistrate Judge conduct all further proceedings.

18

14.

19

As explained above, these actions are already the subject of Panel proceedings.

20

The Parties do not believe there is a present need for a special master. The Parties do not

21

CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR ALL PURPOSES

OTHER REFERENCES

believe referral of these actions to binding arbitration is indicated or appropriate.

22

15.

NARROWING OF ISSUES

23

Defendants plan to file motions to dismiss all causes of action asserted in the Consolidated

24

Complaint. Defendants believe that until those motions are decided, and until the effect of the

25

Panel proceedings is determined, it is unclear what the issues in these actions will be – or indeed

26

what actions may be part of these proceedings, if any. Accordingly, Defendants believe that

27

efforts at narrowing the issues would be premature.

28
H OGAN L OVEL LS US
LLP
ATT ORNE YS AT LA W
PALO AL TO

- 11 -

INITIAL JOINT CASE MGMT. STMT.
Case No. CV 10-5878 LHK

1

16.

2

At this point, the Parties do not believe that these consolidated actions present issues that

3

EXPEDITED SCHEDULE

can or should be handled on an expedited basis.

4

17.

SCHEDULING

5

Plaintiffs believe that a schedule can be discussed and entered into at this point using the

6

date of the filing of responsive pleadings by Defendants as a baseline date. As set forth above,

7

Plaintiffs believe that they can file their motion for class certification within 120 days thereafter.

8

Since Defendants will not engage in further discussion on a schedule at this point, stating

9

Plaintiffs’ position on the other dates would not be productive without Defendants’ cooperation or

10

initial disclosures. Plaintiffs believe that Defendants’ stated concern about additional parties and

11

counsel ignores the fact that no other action pending has had any progress whatsoever and that

12

this Court has appointed leadership.

13

Defendants believe it is premature to propose further scheduling until the Panel acts on the

14

pending motion for transfer. Indeed, Apple has moved the Court to stay these actions pending the

15

Panel’s determination of Apple’s motion to transfer. Defendants expect to work with all parties,

16

including parties that may be new to these proceedings, to establish a reasonable schedule for

17

discovery, dispositive motions, and trial once the effect of the Panel proceedings on these actions

18

is known.

19

Beyond the uncertainty resulting from the pending Panel proceedings, Defendants note

20

that several Defendants were served for the first time in any of these actions just in the past week.

21

Those Defendants are not yet in a position to make or agree to scheduling proposals.

22

18.

23

Plaintiffs have demanded a trial by jury of all issues so triable. The Parties believe it is

24

TRIAL

premature to estimate the length of any trial.

25

19.

DISCLOSURE OF NONPARTY INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS

26

Apple filed its Certification of Interested Parties or Entities on May 13, 2011 (Dkt. No.

27

87). As Apple stated in that Certification, Apple has no parent corporation. According to

28

Apple’s Proxy Statement filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in

H OGAN L OVEL LS US
LLP
ATT ORNE YS AT LA W
PALO AL TO

- 12 -

INITIAL JOINT CASE MGMT. STMT.
Case No. CV 10-5878 LHK

1

January 2011, there are no beneficial owners that hold more than 10% of Apple’s outstanding

2

common stock. As of this date, Apple is unaware of any person or entity other than the named

3

parties with a financial or other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the

4

proceeding.

5

AdMob filed its Certification of Interested Parties or Entities on May 11, 2011 (Dkt. No.

6

79). As AdMob stated in its certification, AdMob is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Google Inc., a

7

publicly traded company.

8
9
10

Flurry and Pinch Media are in the process of preparing their Certifications of Interested
Parties or Entities and expect to file them shortly.
MobClix’s parent corporation is Velti plc, a corporation incorporated under the laws of

11

Jersey, the Channel Islands. As of this date, other than its parent and the parties named in the

12

proceeding, MobClix is unaware of any other person or entity with a financial interest in the

13

subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding or other interest that could be

14

substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.

15
16

Millennial Media is in the process of preparing its Certification of Interested Parties or
Entities and expects to file it shortly.

17

AdMarvel filed its Certification of Interested Parties or Entities on May 18, 2011.

18

20.

19

If the Panel sends all cases to this Court, the Parties believe it will be useful to schedule a

20
21
22

OTHER MATTERS

further Case Management Conference shortly after the Panel resolves Apple’s motion for transfer.
The Parties are currently unaware of other matters that may facilitate the just, speedy, and
inexpensive resolution of these actions.

23
24
25
26
27
28
H OGAN L OVEL LS US
LLP
ATT ORNE YS AT LA W
PALO AL TO

- 13 -

INITIAL JOINT CASE MGMT. STMT.
Case No. CV 10-5878 LHK

1

Respectfully submitted,

2
3

Dated: May 18, 2011

By: /s/ Michael L. Charlson
Michael L. Charlson

4
5

Attorneys for Defendant
APPLE INC.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

Dated: May 18, 2011

KAMBERLAW, LLP
By: /s/ Scott A. Kamber
Scott A. Kamber (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
SCOTT A. KAMBER (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
DAVID A. STAMPLEY (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
KAMBERLAW, LLC
100 Wall Street, 23nd Floor
New York, New York 10005
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
DEBORAH KRAVITZ
KAMBERLAW, LLP
141 North Street
Healdsburg, California 95448
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

Interim Class Counsel

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
H OGAN L OVEL LS US
LLP
ATT ORNE YS AT LA W
PALO AL TO

- 14 -

INITIAL JOINT CASE MGMT. STMT.
Case No. CV 10-5878 LHK

1

Dated: May 18, 2011

2

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
By: /s/ Gail E. Lees
Gail E. Lees

3

GAIL E. LEES
S. ASHLIE BERINGER
JOSHUA A. JESSEN
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1881 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

4
5
6
7
8
9

Attorneys for Defendant
FLURRY, INC.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Dated: May 18, 2011

DURIE TANGRI LLP
By: /s/ Michael H. Page
Michael H. Page
MICHAEL H. PAGE
JOSEPH C. GRATZ
DURIE TANGRI LLP
217 Leidesdorff Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
ADMOB, INC.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
H OGAN L OVEL LS US
LLP
ATT ORNE YS AT LA W
PALO AL TO

- 15 -

INITIAL JOINT CASE MGMT. STMT.
Case No. CV 10-5878 LHK

1

Dated: May 18, 2011

2

By: /s/ Carter W. Ott
Carter W. Ott

3

LUANNE SACKS
CARTER W. OTT
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
555 Mission Street, Suite 2400
San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

4
5
6
7
8

Attorneys for Defendant
MOBCLIX, INC.

9
10

DLA PIPER LLP (US)

Dated: May 18, 2011

11

COOLEY LLP
By: /s/ Matthew D. Brown
Matthew D. Brown

12

MICHAEL G. RHODES
MATTHEW D. BROWN
COOLEY LLP
101 California Street, 5th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

13
14
15
16
17

Attorneys for Defendants
ADMARVEL, INC. and MILLENNIAL MEDIA
INC.

18
19
20

ATTESTATION

21
22

Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X (B), I, Michael L. Charlson, attest that

23

concurrence in this Initial Joint Case Management Statement has been obtained.

24

DATED: May 18, 2011

25
26
27

/s/ Michael L. Charlson
Michael L. Charlson

28
H OGAN L OVEL LS US
LLP
ATT ORNE YS AT LA W
PALO AL TO

- 16 -

INITIAL JOINT CASE MGMT. STMT.
Case No. CV 10-5878 LHK