Davidson et al v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 132

NOTICE OF HEARING AND INTERIM ORDER re 129 Discovery Dispute Joint Report No. 1. Discovery Hearing set for 11/8/2017 01:30 PM in Courtroom 2, 5th Floor, San Jose before Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd. Lead counsel shall appear in person. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 10/26/2017. (hrllc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/26/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

THOMAS DAVIDSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

13

NOTICE OF HEARING AND INTERIM
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
JOINT REPORT NO. 1

v.

14
15

Case No.5:16-cv-04942-LHK (HRL)

APPLE, INC.,
Defendant.

16

Re: Dkt. No. 129

17
18

The parties in this putative consumer class action have filed Discovery Dispute Joint

19

Report #1 (“DDJR#1”) because they cannot agree on a protocol to control the inspection and

20

testing of the plaintiffs’ allegedly defective iPhones.

21
22

The court sets a hearing on DDJR#1 for November 8, 2017 at 1:30 PM. Lead counsel
shall appear in person.

23

The court wishes counsel to be particularly prepared to address the following:

24

1.

25
26
27
28

Is there information, data, or diagnostic markers in the iPhones that are accessible

only to Apple?
2.

Can Apple, on account of proprietary diagnostic tools, analyze or interpret data

accessed or extracted from the iPhones in a way that plaintiffs cannot?
3.

Apple tells the court that plaintiffs can discover the same “underlying facts”

1
2
3

through their own testing as Apple can through its testing. Define “underlying facts.”
4.

Identify and describe what are “non-proprietary tests” as that phrase was used by

the parties.

4

5.

Can Apple describe its proprietary tests?

5

6.

Is identifying or describing a test to be run disclosing work product? Does it matter

6

if the test is proprietary or non-proprietary? How about the test results?

7

7.

8

“factual”?

9

8.

Is any data accessed or extracted from the iPhones “work product,” or is it simply

Apple’s description of “non-destructive” testing seems to leave room for alteration,

correction, deletion, or addition of data during a test so long as it does not “permanently alter the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

physical appearance or functionality of the iPhones.” Is that correct? Does it matter?

12
13
14

9.

How would the neutral expert know (or, how would plaintiffs know if the test were

described to them), that a test was non-destructive?
10.

Since the plaintiffs’ claim appears to be based on an internal hardware defect, and

15

all agree that the phone case is not to be opened, what type of test might be destructive of

16

something important?

17

11.

How would anyone know if something had been “destroyed”?

18

12.

Would creation of a mirror image of each iPhone prior to testing be sufficient

19
20

protection in the event of any “destruction” during testing?
The court encourages the parties to meet and confer again to try to reach agreement on a

21

test protocol. They are surely better informed than this court on testing and on smart phone

22

technology and ought to be able to craft something that will take into account and fairly balance

23

their legitimate interests.

24
25

SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 26, 2017

26
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

27
28
2