Barrett et al v. Apple Inc. et al

Filing 209

REDACTED ORDER by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi re 138 , 201 Discovery Dispute re Apple's Responses to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories Nos. 9-11. Further status report due by 5/23/2023. (vkdlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/19/2023)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
CARL BARRETT, et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,

9
v.

10

APPLE INC., et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Defendants.

12

Case No. 20-cv-04812-EJD (VKD)
REDACTED
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE
APPLE’S RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORIES
NOS. 9-11
Re: Dkt. Nos. 138, 201

13
After conferring further at the Court’s direction, plaintiffs and defendants Apple Inc. and

14
15

Apple Value Services LLC (“Apple”) ask the Court to resolve their dispute concerning Apple’s

16

responses to plaintiffs’ Interrogatories Nos. 9-11. Dkt. Nos. 138, 201.
In response to plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 9,1 Apple gave the following answer (subject to

17
18

certain objections):

19

Xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx x x x xxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx
Xxxxx xx Xxxx XXXx xxxx xxxxxx xx xxxxxxxxx xx xxx xxx
Xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxx x xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx x
xxxx xx xxxxxx xx xxxxxxxx xx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxx
Xxxxx xx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xx xxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxx
Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xx xxxxxxxxx xxx Xxxx Xxxx
XXXx xx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxx xxxx xxx xxxx
xxxxxxxx xx xx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxx xxxxxxxx
Xxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xx
xxxxxxx xx xx xxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx xx

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Interrogatory No. 9 asks: “Identify and describe all methods known to Apple which are used by
scammers to obtain the funds paid by victims for Gift Cards subject to a Gift Card Scams[sic],
including but not limited to resale of the PINs on the secondary markets, royalty fraud, and
purchase/resale of in-app currency.” Dkt. No. 201, Ex. A.
1

xxxxxxxxxx.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1
2

Dkt. No. 201, Ex. A. Relying on their Interrogatory No. 11,2 plaintiffs have asked Apple to

3

quantify these methods of monetization used by scammers. Dkt. No. 201 at 1-3. At the very least,

4

plaintiffs say that Apple should explain further why it believes (1) xxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx

5

xxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxx is the “primar[y]” means by which scammers monetize Gift Cards and Gift

6

Card PINs; (2) xxxxxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxx xxx Xxxx Xxxx XXXx xx xxxxx xx happens “on some

7

occasions”; and (3) xxxxxxx xxxxx is “exceedingly unpopular” as a method of monetization. Id.

8

at 1. Apple responds that it does not maintain any data that would permit it to quantify, or even

9

estimate, the kinds of information plaintiffs seek in Interrogatory No. 11. Id. at 3, Ex. A.

10

Specifically, Apple explains that it is unable to reliably distinguish whether xxxxxx xxxxxxxx

11

xxxxxxxxx xx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxx is legitimate or fraudulent. Id. at 4.

12

The Court is not persuaded Apple has data that permits it to provide the quantitative

13

information Interrogatory No. 11 calls for or that Apple is simply refusing to investigate this issue.

14

Plaintiffs refer to gift card activity patterns that may suggest suspicious activity, and to the fact

15

that xxxxxxxx xxxxx xx fraudulent gift card activity likely are known to the “hundreds of people”

16

at Apple who work on gift card scam issues. See id. at 2-3. To the extent plaintiffs suggest that

17

Rule 33 requires Apple to undertake an investigation of suspicious activity or poll its hundreds of

18

employees who work on these matters in order to attempt to quantify instances of each method of

19

monetization, where it does not actually record or quantify that information in the ordinary course

20

of business, the Court disagrees that such an effort is contemplated by the Rule or that it is

21

proportionate to the needs of the case. To the extent plaintiffs argue that Apple xxxx xxxxxx

22

xxxxxxx xx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxx xx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xx, the Court

23

understands that Apple has produced those records.3

24
25
26
27
28

Interrogatory No. 11 asks: “For each method of monetization described in response to
Interrogatory No. 9 above, identify the Gift Cards subject to Gift Card Scams which were
monetized, the amounts paid by consumers for those Gift Cards, any amounts refunded to
consumers for those Gift Cards, any amounts cashed out to consumers for those Gift Cards, and
any amounts retained by consumers for those Gift Cards.” Dkt. No. 201, Ex. A.
2

3

Plaintiffs do not explain what they mean when they say Apple xxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
xxxxx . . . xx xxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxx xx xxx xxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxx or how this
2

1
2
3

For this reason, the Court denies plaintiffs request for an order requiring Apple to provide
further information in response to Interrogatory No. 11.
The parties shall provide a status report regarding their efforts to resolve their dispute

4

about Interrogatory No. 7 by May 23, 2023. That status report must comply with the formatting

5

requirements of Civil L.R. 3-4(c)(2).

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 19, 2023

8
9
10

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI
United States Magistrate Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

information is responsive to plaintiffs’ request for quantification. See Dkt. No. 201 at 2.
3