Trujillo v. Apple Computer, Inc. et al

Filing 117

RESPONSE by Jose Trujilloin Opposition to MOTION by Defendant Apple Computer, Inc. for summary judgment 53 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Group Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit M)(Rowe, James)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DlSnuCT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

subject to the right to object to any proceeding involving or relating to the subject matter of the IntelTOgatories responded to herein. Apple is responding to the Interrogatories, and each Interrogatory therein, as Apple

JOSE TRUJILLO, individuaJly and on behaJf of all others similarly situated,

interprets and understands the Interrogatories Case No. 07-CV-04946 with this litigation. Judge Kennelly

with respect to the issues fmmed in connection

Plaintiff,

Apple has not completed its investigation of the facts related to this case, presently known to Apple. Therefore,

and these responses are based onJy on infonnation

APPLE COMPUTER, INC., a CaJifomia Corpomtion, and AT&T, INC., a Texas Corpomtion, Defendants.

these responses are given without prejudice to Apple's right to supplement, amend, or moclify these responses or to argue evidence at trial on these issues. Responses to IntCITogatories that seek confidential, proprietary, commercially

sensitive, or tmde secret information will only be made subject to the entry of an appropriate RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S OF DEFENDANT APPLE INC. FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORJES of Civil Procedure and LocaJ Rule and protective order governing the use and disclosure of such proprietary, commercially or confidential information. Subject to the foregoing conditions, Apple objects and responds to the Interrogatories sensitive

Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the FederaJRules 33.1, Defendant Apple Inc. (hereinafter objections to Plaintiff Jose Trujillo's "Interrogatory"). PRELIMINARY In responding to any Interrogatory, or admissibility of any information thereto.

"Apple") hereby submits the following responses ("Interrogatories" or

First Set of Interrogatories

as follows:
OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS by

STATEMENT

The following objections apply to each Interrogatory and are incorporated reference into each specific response set forth below.

Apple does not concede the relevancy, materiaJity, or any response

sought by any of the Interrogatories

I.

Apple objects to each definition and instruction to the extent it seeks to impose the

Apple's responses are made subject to and without waiver of any questions or relevancy, materiaJity, privilege, or admissibility as evidence

obligations beyond those required or permitted by the Fedeml Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rules of the Northern District of Illinois, or other any other applicable rules.

objections as to the competency,

or for any other purpose, of any of the documents or information ref CITed to or of the responses given herein, or of the subject matter thereof, in any proceeding, including the triaJ

2.

Apple objects generally to plaintiffs

definition of "You, ""Your," oppressive

and

"Defendant" on the ground that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, information not in Apple's possession, plaintitrs custody or control.

and seeks

of this action or any other subsequent proceeding, and said responses are made specificaJly

Apple objects generaJly to to the extent that it purports to seek

definition of "You," "Your," and "Defendant"

sf-2461296

,f.246]296

information that is protected by the attorney-client doctrine, or any other constitutional, responding to these Interrogatories "Defendant"

privilege, the attorney work product In

the identification of documents and thereby exceed the aJlowable number of Interrogatories pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33.

statutory or common-law privilege and/or doctrine. Apple has liroited the terms "You," "Your," and/or

6.

Apple objects genemlly to plaintitrs

definition of "relates" on the grounds that and fails to describe the irtformation

]0 mean Apple Inc. and any of its current employees, officers, or directors. Apple objects generaJly to plaintitrs definitions of"document(s)" and oppressive,

it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, sought with reasonable particularity.

3.

"communication"

on the grounds that they are overbroad, unduly burdensome,

7.

Apple objects to plaintitrs and seeks infonnation

first instruction on the grounds that it is overbroad, that is not in the possession, custody or control of first instruction to the extent that it purports to privilege, the

seek information that is not in the possession, custody or control of Apple, and purport to impose obligations that exceed those set forth in the FederaJ Rules of Civil Procedure. 4. Apple objects generaJly to plaintitrs definition of "persons" on the grounds

unduly burdensome,

Apple. Apple further objects to plaintitrs

require the production of information that is protected by the anomey-client attorney work product doctrine, or any other constitutional, privilege and/or doctrine. Apple further objects to plaintitrs it seeks information protected by common law, constitutionaJ, privacy. Apple further objects to plaintitrs

that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome,

oppressive, and seeks information not in the definition of

statutory, or common-law first instruction to the extent that and/or statutory rights of

possession, custody or control of Apple. Apple further objects to plaintitrs

"persons" to the extent that it purports to seek information that is protected by the anomeyclient privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or any other constitutional, common-law privilege and/or doctrine. statutory, or

first instruction to the extent that it purports to

impose obligations on Apple that exceed those required by FederaJ Rules of Civil Procedure definitions of "identify" and oppressive, and 26 and 33. Apple further objects to plaintitrs first instruction on the grounds that it purports requesting ti,e identification of

5.
"identification"

Apple objects generaJly to plaintitrs

on the grounds that they are overbroad, unduly burdensome,

to include additional discrete subparts to every Interrogatory

seek information not in the possession, plaintitrs definitions of "identify"

custody or control of Apple. Apple further objects to to the extent that they purport to seek

persons and thereby violates the aJIowable number of Interrogatories of Civil Procedure 33.

pursuant to FederaJ Rule

:t.

and "identification"

information that is protected by the attorney-client doctrine, or any other constitutional, Apple further objects to plaintitrs

privilege, the attorney work product

8.

Apple objects to plaintitrs

second instruction on tile grounds that it is that is not in the possession, custody or

statutory, or common-law privilege and/or doctrine. definition of "identify" and "identification" on the grounds

overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information control of Apple. Apple further objects to plaintitrs

second instruction to the extent that it

that they add nine additionaJ discrete subparts to every Interrogatory requesting the

purports to require the production of information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or any other constitutional, statutory, or

identification f persons ndten additional iscrete ubparts every Interrogatory requesting o a d s to

,f-2461296

sf'2461296

4

I'

common-law

privilege andlor doctrine.

Apple further objects to plaintiff's

second instruction andlor

GENERAL OBJECflONS
The following general objections apply to each InteITogatory and, accordingly, Apple

to the extent that it seeks infonnation

protected by common law, constitutional,

statutory rights of privacy. Apple objects to plaintiff's

second instruction to the extent that it

incorporates each of them into the specific responses set forth below. The assertion of the same, similar, or additional objections or the provision of responses to any specific Intmogatory
by reference:

purports to impose obligations on Applc that exceed those required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33. Apple further objects to plaintiff's second instruction on the grounds any

does not waive any of Apple's general objections stated herein and incorporated

that it purports to include additional discrete subparts to every InteITOgatory requesting "description"

and thereby violates the allowable number oflnteITOgatories pursuant to Federal

I.

Apple objects to the Interrogatories

to the extent that they seek infonnation

Rule of Civil Procedure 33.

protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or any other available evidentiary privilege or protection. Nothing contained herein is intended to be or privilege, the attorney work product Privileged infonnation and work

9.

Apple objects to plaintiff's third instruction to the extent that it purports to

impose obligations on Apple that exceed those required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33. Apple further objects to plaintiff's require the production of infonnation third instruction to the extent that it purports to privilege, the

should be construed as a waiver of the attorney-client

doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or protection.

that is protected by the attorney-client

product are not provided in these responses, and inadvertent disclosure is not a waiver of any privilege or of the work product protection. exclude requests for privileged infonnation Apple therefore construes each InteITogatory to of any sort.

attorney work product doctrine, or any other constitutional, privilege andlor doctrine.

statutory, or common-law

10.

Apple objects to plaintiff's

fourth instruction to the extent that it purports to

2.

Apple objects to the InteITOgatories to the extent they seek to impose

impose obligations on Apple that exceed those required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33. Apple further objects to plaintiff's to require the production of infonnation fourth instruction to the extent that it purports privilege, the

obligations or requirements on Apple which are greater than, inconsistent with, or different from those imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of the Northern District of Illinois or any other applicable rules.

that is protected by the attomey-client

attorney work product doctrine, or any other constitutional, privilege andlor doctrine.

statutory, or common-law

3.

Apple objects to the Interrogatories

on the ground that they seek trade secret or will only

material, including, but not limited to, sensitive business or financial infonnation, fifth instruction to the extent that it is inconsistent confidential research, developutent, or commercial infonnation. Such infom,ation

II.

Apple objects to plaintiff's of Local Rule 33.1.

with the requirements

be disclosed subject to the entry of an appropriate protective order governing the use and disclosure of proprietary, commercially sensitive or confidential infonnation.

,f-246t296

,f-2461296

4.

Apple objects to the Interrogatories

to the extent that they seek infonnation

ground to the use of said responses or the subject matter thereof, in any subsequent proceeding in, or the trial of, this or any other action; (c) the right to object on any ground at any time to a demand for further responses to these or any other discovery procedures involving or related to the subject matter of the InteITOgatories directed to Apple; and (d) the right to object on any ground as to any other or future discovery requests.

protected by common law, constitutional,

andlor statutory rights of privacy.

5.

Apple objects to the InteITOgatories to the extent that they seek infonnation nor to

that is not relevant to the resolution of the pending motion for summary judgment claims and defenses in the action.

6.

Apple objects to the Interrogatories

to the extent that they are premature in

Subject to the foregoing Preliminary Statement, Objections to Plaintiff's and Instructions, and General Objections, Apple responds as follows: OBJECTIONS INTERROGATORY NO. I: title, current address, date ofbirtb, AND RESPONSES

Definitions

light of the procedural posture of the litigation.

7.

Apple objects to the InteITOgatories to the extent that they are overbroad, and oppressive. to the extent that they seek infonnation not

unduly burdensome,

8.

Apple objects to the Interrogatories

State the full name,job

and social security number

in the possession, custody, or control of Apple.

of all individuals who assisted in answering these inteITOgatories. to RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. I: Statement, Objections to

9.

Apple objects to the InteITOgatories to the extent that they seek infonnation

which plaintiff has equal access andlor which is already in the possession, custndy, or control

Apple refers to and incorporates by reference its Preliminary Plaintiff's

of plaintiff. 10.
Apple objects to the InteITOgatories to the extent that they are vague and

Definitions and Instructions, and General Objections as though set forth in full

herein. Apple further objects to this InteITOgatory to the extent that it calls for infonnation protected from disclosure by the attomey-client doctrine. privilege andlor the attorney work prnduct

ambiguous as to time.

11.

Apple objects to the InteITOgatories to the extent they exceed the allowable pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 in that they contain

Apple further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks infonnation andlor statutory rights of privacy. Apple reaponds as follows:

number ofinteITOgatories

protected by common law, constitutional,

excessive discrete subparts.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections,

12.

Apple states these objections without waiving or intending to waive: (a) all

Penelope Preovolos, Andrew Muhlbach and Johanna Roberts, Morrison & Foerster LLP, 425 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, with the assistance of Apple's in-house counsel as well as the following employees: Infrastructure), Douglas Vincent (Senior Manager for Imeraclive

objections to competency, relevancy, materiality, privilege, and admissibility as evidence or for any purpose of the responses to these Interrogatories, or subject matter thereof, in any

subsequent proceeding in, or the trial of, this or any other action; (b) the right to object on any

Peggy Jensen (Worldwide Packaging Manager), Carol Jinks (production

,f-246t296

,'-2461296

Lead, AppleCare Knowledge Management

Group) and Lance Kunnath (AppleCare Online

www.anole.com/suoooniiohoneiservieelhatterv

and 4:00 pm by AppleCare.

Support Manager), Apple Inc., I Infinite Loop, Cupertino, CA 95014.

www.aoole.com/suoooniiohoneiservice/faaonJuoe29.2007.by INTERROGATORY NO.3:

INTERROGATORY NO.2:
State the date and time that Defeodant posted the terms of its battery replacement program, including the price of same, to its website at www.aoole.com pages, and ideotity the person respoosible web-page to which it was posted. or any of its sub-

Identify any and all marketing and promotional materials, press releases, product packaging, manuals, product guides, web pages, specification sheets, documents or otherwise

for postiog said information and the address of the

in whicb, prior to June 29, 2007, Apple disclosed to the public the terms and costs of its battery replacement. For each sucb document, identity its date of release, the mode of release

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.2:
Apple refers to and incorporates Plaintiff's by reference its Preliminary Statement, Objections to

(mail, email, fax, ooJine, etc.) to wbom it was released, and by wbom it was drafted. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.3: Statement, Objections to

Definitions and Instructions, and General Objections as though set forth in full

Apple refers to and incorporates by reference its Preliminary

herein. Apple further objects tn this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad and does not seek the discovery of information relevant to the resolution of Apple's pending summary judgment motion nor to the claims and defenses in this case because it is not limited to information relating to the iPhone out.of-warranty battery replacement program. Apple

Plaintiff's Definitions and Instructions, and General Objections as tbougb set fortb in full herein. Apple further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and does not seek the discovery of information relevant to the resolution of Apple's pending sununary judgment motion nor to the claims and defenses in this case because it is not limited to information relating to the iPhone out-of-warranty replacement program. battery

further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information protected by common law, constitutional, Interrogatory andlor statutory rights of privacy. Apple further objects to this

Apple further objects to the extent that it seeks information to which custody, or control of

on the grounds that it is compound and contains discrete subparts which exceed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33.

plaintiff bas equal access andlor wbich is already in the possession,

the allowable number oflnterrogatories

plaintiff. Apple further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is compound and contains discrete subparts which exceed the allowable number of Interrogatories Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, As early as January 9, 2007, Apple posted technical specifications website at www.apole.com/iohone/technnlogv/soecs.htmlthat Apple responds as follows: for the iPhone on its pursuant to

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Apple responds as follows: The terms of the iPhone out-of-warranty battery replacement program, including the price,

were posted (0 the webpage www.aople.com/batteries/reolacements.htmlonJune29.2007.at 6:00 pm by the Interactive battery replacement Infrastructure Group. The terms of the iPhone out-of-warranty

program, including the price, were posted to the webpages

made clear that the iPhooe

sf-2461296

,f.246]

296

10

battery "may need to be replaced." press in advance of the product's

In addition, Apple provided iPhones to members of the intruduction and their independent reviews of the iPhone

common law, constitutional,

andlor statutory rights of privacy. Apple further objects to this

Interrogatory on the gmunds that it is compound and contains discrete subparts which exceed the allowable number oflnterrogatories pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33.

appeared in major newspapers on June 27, 2007, two days before the iPhone went on sale. These published reviews noted that the iPbone battery was not user-replaceable would be a fee for replacement. and that there

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Apple responds as follows: The cost of the iPhone out-of-warranty battery replacement progran1 was posted by Apple to

David Pogue stated in bis June 27, 2007, review in ti1e New

York Times. "Eventually, you'll have to send the phone to Apple for battery replacement, much as you do now with an iPod, for a fee." Walter Mossberg stated in his June 27, 2007, review in the Wall Street Journal. "Like the iPod, but unlike most cell phones, the iPhone lacks a removable hattery." Edward Baig stated in his June 27, 2007, review in USA Today,

multiple Apple webpages on June 29, 2007: www.apole.comlbatterieslreolacements.html; www.anole.com/suoooniiohone/servicelbatterv; www.aoole.comisUDooniiohoneiservicelfaa. INTERROGATORY NO.5 program, and

iPhone "doesn't have a removable battery. . .. You'd have to send the device to Apple or presumably a third party to swap a spent battery." INTERROGATORY NO.4:

On what date did Apple decide upon the tenus of its battery replacement inclading the price? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.5: by reference its Preliminary

Oa what date did the cost of Apple's hattery replacement program first appear on www.aoole.com or any of its sub-pages? Please identity the web-page upon which it

Apple refers to and incorporates

Statement, Objections to

Plaintiff's Definitions and Instructions, and General Objections as though set forth in full herein. Apple further objects to this Interrogatory an the grounds that it is overbroad and does not seek the discovery of information relevant to the resolution of Apple's pending summary

appeared, if any, and identity the individual who made such posting. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.4: hy reference its Preliminary Statement, Objections to

Apple refers to and iacorporates

judgment motion nor to the claims and defenses in this case because it is not limited to infnrmation relating to the iPhone out-of-warraoty further obiects to this Interrogatory the word "terms". battery replacement program. Apple

Plaintiff's Definitions and Instructions, and General Objections as though set forth in full herein. Apple further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad and does not seek the discovery of information relevant to the resolution of Apple's pending summary

on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous in its use of

Apple further abjects to this Interrogatory on the groands that it is

judgment motion nor to the claims and defenses in this case because it is not limited to information relating to the iPhone out-of-warranty further objects to this Interrogatory battery replacement program. Apple

compound and contains discrete subparts which exceed the allowahle number af Interrogatories pursuant to Federal Rule afCivil Procedure 33. Apple further objects to !his

to the extent that it seeks infarmation protected by

,(-246t296

J]

,f-2461296

12

Interrogatory on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome and duplicative
Admission No. 27.

of Request for

"any entity, organization or individual of any sort." Apple further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome, compound and contains discrete subparts which pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Subject to and witilOut waiving the foregoing objections, Apple responds as follows: The price of the iPhone out-of-warranty iPhone's launch on June 29, 2007. INTERROGATORY NO.6: battery replacement program was decided prior to the

exceed the allowable number of Interrogatories
Procedure 33.

Suhject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Apple responds as follows: After a reasonable inquiry, Apple states that it has no record of media inquiries or inquiries from a regulatory agency, investigative body or consumer advocacy group related to the iPhone out-of-warranty battery replacement program received prior to the release of the

Did Apple receive any inquiry prior to its release of the iPbone regarding the iPhone hattery replacement program, iPhone battery replacement, and/or the cost of iPhone battery body,

replacement from any consumer, member of the media, regulatory agency, investigative

iPhone.
INTERROGATORY NO.7:

consumer advocacy group, or any entity, organization, or individual of any sort by any means of commuoication? If yes, identify the date and form of each such inquiry, to whom it was

On what date, and at what time, did Apple post the terms of its battery replacement. program, including cost, on its website at: www.annle.comlbatteries/reolacements.hunl? ID:~PONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.7 by reference its Preliminary Statement, Objections to

addressed, from whom it was received, and how Apple responded to each such inquiry. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.6: by reference its Preliminary Statement, Objections to

Apple refers to and incorporates Plaintiffs Definitions and Instructions,

Apple refers to and incorporates Plaintiffs

and General Objections as though set forth in full to the exteot that they seek information protected

Definitions and Instructions, and General Objections as though set forth in full

herein. Apple objects to the Interrogatories by the attorney-client

herein. Apple further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad and does not seek the discovery of information relevant to the resolution of Apple's pending summary

privilege, tile attorney work product doctrine, or any other available Apple further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds

evidentiary privilege or protection.

judgment motion nor to tile claims and defenses io this case because it is not limited to information relating to the iPhone out-of-warranty battery replacement program. Apple

that it is overbroad and does not seek the discovery of information relevant to the resolution of Apple's pending summary judgmeot motion nor to the claims and defenses in this case. to the exteot that it seeks informatioo protected by Apple further objects to this

further objects to tilis Interrogatory on the grounds that it is duplicative of other Interrogatories propounded by plaintiff. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Apple responds as follows: The tenns of tile iPhone out-of-warranty battery replacement program, including the price,

Apple further objects to this Interrogatory common law, constitutional,

and/or statutory rights of privacy.

Interrogatory on the grounds that its overbroad, vague and ambiguous in its use of the term

sf-2461296

13

,f-2461296

14

were posted to the webpage www.annle.com/batteries/renlacements.htmlonJune29.2007.at

RESPONSE

TO INTERROGATORY

NO.9: by reference its Preliminary Statement, Objections to

6:00 pm.
Apple refers to and incorporates

INTERROGATORY NO.8:
Plaintiffs On wbat date, ,md at what time, did Apple post the terms of its battery replacement program, including cost, on its website at: www.anole.com/suooortlinhone/service/batterv? protected from disclosure by the attorney-client RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.8: doctrine. Apple refers to and incorporates Plaintiff s Definitions and Instructions, by reference its Preliminary Statement, Objections to does not seek the discovery of infonnation and General Objections as though set forth in full summary judgment motion nor to the claims and defenses in this case because it is not limited herein. Apple further objects to this Interrogatory not seek the discovery of information on the grounds that it is overbroad and does to information relating to tile iPhone out-of-warranty relevant to the resolution of Apple's pending summary further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information protected by judgment motion nor to the claims and defenses in this case because it is not lintited to common law, constitutional, and/or statutory rights of privacy. information relating to the iPhone out-of-warranty battery replacement program. Apple Apple furtber objects to this battery replacement program. Apple relevant to the resolution of Apple's pending Apple furtiler objects to this Interrogatory on tile grounds that it is overbroad and privilege and/or tile attorney work product Definitions and Instructions, and General Objections as tilOugh set forth in full herein, Apple further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it calls for information

Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous in its use of the term "in detail." Apple further objects to tltis Interrogatory on the grounds that it is compound and contains

further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is duplicative of other Interrogatories propounded by plaintiff. discrete subparts which exceed the allowable number of Interrogatories Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Apple responds as follows: The terms of the iPhone out-of-warranty battery replacement program, including the price, on June 29, The process as of June 29, 2007, for updating pages related to the iPhone bat1ery on the Apple 2007, before 4:00 pm. website was as follows: the process was initiated for uploading the webpages and INTERROGATORY NO.9: confirmation was made that they were uploaded. Describe, in detail, the process as of June 29, 2007 for updating information on the INTERROGATORY NO. 10: materials, press releases, product sheets, documents, or Rule of Civil Procedure 33. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Apple responds as follows: pursuant to Federal

were posted to the webpage www.aople.com/supnortliphone/servicelbatterv

Apple website, including the process for approving all updates, and the time delay between Please identify all marketing and promotional updating the website and such updates being accessibie to the public. packaging, manuaJs, product guides, web pages, specification

otherwise, to which consumers had access that directed them to visit the specific webpages

sf-2461296

15
sf-2461296

16

located at www.aDDle.comlbattenesireolacemeots.htmland/or www.aDDle.com/suDoortiiohooeiservicelbatterv prior to, on, or following June 29, 2007. For

3. 4.

the iPhone User Guide posted on Apple's website; the iPhone tecbnical specifications located at

each such document, identify its date of release, the mode of release (mail, email, fax, online, etc.) to whom it was released, and by whom it was drafted. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10; by reference its Preliminary Statement, Objections to

www.aoDle.com/iDhnneisoecs.html. There is a direct link from Apple's generaJ battery information page, www.aDDle.comlbattenes, to www.aoDle.comlbatteriesireDlacements.html. There is a direct

Apple refers to and incorporates Plaintiff's

link from www.aDDle.comlbatteriesireolacements.htmlto
www.aoDle.comisUDDOrtliDhoneiservicelbatterv.

DefiDitions and Instructions, and General Objections as though set fottb in full on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly

herein. Apple futtber objects to this Interrogatory burdensome Apple's

INTERROGATORY

NO. II:

and does not seek the wscovery of information relevant to the resolution of

State whether or not it is possible for a consumer to activate an iPhone with AT&T Mobility, LLC, without removing the iPhone from its packaginglbox? for doing same. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. II: by reference its Preliminary Statement, Objections to If yes, state the process

pending summary judgment motion nor tn the claims and defenses in this case.

Apple futther objects to the extent that it seeks information to which plaintiff has equal access andlor which is already in the possession, custody, or control of plaintiff. Apple futther

objects to this Interrogatnry on the grounds that it is compound and contains wscrete subparts which exceed the allowable number of Interrogatories Procedure 33. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Apple responds as follows: From the date of the iPhone launch on June 29, 2007, to the present, Apple has disclosed the tenas and price of the iPhone out-of-warranty battery replacement program in numerous for pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Apple refers to and incorporates Plaintiff's

Definitions and Instructions, and General Objections as though set forth in full

herein. Apple futther objects to the extent that it seeks information to which plaintiff has equal access andlor which is already in the possession, custody, or cootrol of plaintiff. Apple

futther objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and does Dot seek the discovery of iDformatioD relevantto the resolution of Apple's pending

ways. For example, the following materials direct consumers to www.aDDle.comibatteries information regarding the iPhone battery: .

summary judgment motion nor to the claims and defenses in this case. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Apple responds as follows: In order to activate an iPhone, the iPhone must be counected to a computer.

1. 2.

the feature label on each and every iPhone box; the bnportant Product Infonoation Guide included in each and every iPhone

box and posted on Apple's website;

,f-2461296

17

sf-2461296

18

INTERROGATORY

NO. 12:

thirty (30) days without being charged a restocking fee if the customer indicates that he or she does not agree to the termS of Apple's product warranty. INTERROGATORY NO. 13:

Does Apple charge a 10% restocking fee on iPhones returned within 14 days after purchase if the iPhone was removed from its packaging? Ifno, please explain Apple's return/exchange RESPONSE policy regarmng the iPhone. NO. 12: by reference its Preliminary Statement, Objections to

What studies has Apple conducted regarding the lifespan andlor durability of its iPhone battery? For each such study, please identify the individual that conducted the study, when the study was commenced I completed, and the results of eaeh study. RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Statement, Objections to

TO INTERROGATORY

Apple refers to and incorporates Plaintiff's

Definitions and Instructions, and General Objections as though set fottb in full on the grounds that it is compound and pursuant to

herein. Apple futtber objects to this Interrogatory

Apple refers to and incorporates

by reference its Preliminary

contains discrete subparts which exceed the allowable number of Interrogatories Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33.

Plaintiff's Definitions and Instructions, and General Objections as though set fnrth in full herein. Apple objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it fails to describe the information sought with reasonable particularity. Apple further objects to this Interrogatory

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing DbjectiDns, Apple responds as follows: A customer who has purcbased an iPhone from an Apple retail store may return it to any Apple retail store within 14 days for a refund of the origiual purchase price, so long as the iPhone is unopened in its origiual packaging. If a customer who has opened the iPhone box

on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as to time and in its use of the terms "studies," "durability" and "lifespan." Apple futther objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it

is overbroad and does not seek the discovery of information relevant to the resolution of Apple's pending summary judgment motion nor to the claims and defenses in this case. Apple futther objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information protected by Apple futtber objects to this

wishes to return the iPhone to an Apple retail store (an "open-box" return), he may do so within 14 days after purchase if the product is still in new condition. Depending on the reason

for return, Apple may refund the original purchase price less a ] O-pereent restocking fee for open-box returns. However, there are several circumstances in which a customer may return

common law, constitutional, andlor statutory rights of privacy. Interrogatory

on the gmunds that it is compound and contains discrete subparts which exceed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33.

an open-box iPhone to the Apple retail store without being assessed a restocking fee. A customer may return an iPhone within thirty (30) days without being charged a restocking fee if the customer indicates that he or she does not agree with AT&T's tenas and conditions of service, is unable to qualify for a service contract with AT&T, or is unable to get acceptable cellular reception in their primary areas of use. A customer may also return an iPhone within

the allowable number oflnterrogatories

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objectioDs, Apple responds as follows: Apple's component suppliers test the cycle life of batteries used in the iPhone. In addition,

Apple tested the batteries before the iPhone was launched and confinoed that thc batteries met specification.

,f-2461296

19

,f-2461296

20

INTERROGATORY

NO. 14:

RESPONSE

TO INTERROGATORY

NO. 15: by reference its Preliminary Statement, Objections to

Does the battery enclosed in the iPhone have a shelf-life or expiration date? If yes. state the general expiration date andlor final shelf-life date of those batteries enclosed in the initial iPhones offered to the public on or about June 29, 2007. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14: by reference its Preliminary Statement. Objections to

Apple refers to and incorporates

Plaintiff's Defioitions and Instructions, and General Objections as though set forth in full herein. Apple further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it calls for information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege andlor the attorney work product doctrine. Apple further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad does not seek the discovery ofinformation relevant to the resolution of Apple's pending and

Apple refers to and incorporates Plaintiff's

Definitions and Instructions, and General Objections as though set forth in full

herein. Apple further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as to time and in its use of the terms "shelf-life" and "expiration date". Apple

summary judgment motion nor to the claims and defenses in this case. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Apple respcnds as follows: Along with other detailed product information, the cost of the iPhone out-of-warranty battery

further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad and does not seek the discovery of information relevant to the resolution of Apple's pending summary judgment motion nor to the claims and defenses in this case. Apple further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is compound and contains discrete subparts which exceed the allowable number ofInterrogatories pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33.

replacement program was posted on June 29, 2007, because that is the day the iPhone was first offered for sale to the public. INTERROGATORY NO. 16:

Apple claims in its Motion for Summary Judgment that it posted the cost of its battery replacement program to its website on June 29, 2007. Assuming arguendo, and without admitting same, what other terms, specifications, costs, details, or information of any sort

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Apple respcnds as follows: Apple states that there is no expiration date associated with iPhone batteries in use. INTERROGATORY NO. 15:

pertaining to the iPhone was released to the public andlor posted to Apple's website on or after June 29. 200?? RESPONSE
to

Apple claims in its Motion for Summary Judgment that it posted the cost of its battery replacement program to its website on June 29, 2007.
admitting same, why did Apple wait until June

Assuming arguendo, and without
the date the iPhone went on sale,

TO INTERROGATORY

NO. 16: by reference its Preliminary Statement, Objections to

29, 2007,

Apple refers to and incorporates

disclose the cost of its battery replacement program?

Plaintiff's Definitions and Instructions, and General Objections as though set forth in full herein. Apple further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it calls for information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege andlor the attorney work product

,'-2461296

21

"-246t296

22

doctrine. Apple further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad and does not seek the discovery of information relevant to the resolution of Apple's pending summary judgment motion nor to the claims and defenses in this case. Apple further objects to the extent that it seeks information to which plaintiff has equal access and/or which is already in the possession. custody, or control of plaintiff. Apple further objects to this vague and ambiguous

RESPONSE

TO INTERROGATORY

NO. 17 by reference its Preliminary Statement, Objections to

Apple refers to and incorporates

Plaintiff's Definitions and Instructions, and General Objections as though set forth in full herein. Apple further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it calls for information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege andlor the attorney work product

Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, in its use of the phrases "other terms . . . or information of any sort."

doctrine. Apple further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and does not seek the discovery of information relevant to the resolution of Apple's pending summary judgment motion nor to the claims and defenses in this case. To the limited extent that this Interrogatory may be relevant to class issues. such discovery is

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Apple responds as follows: Prior to the iPhone launch, Apple had released tecboical specifications release, regarding the iPhone, and the product was demonstrated and several press

at the MacWorid video

unduly burdensome at this stage of the litigation and should be deferred pending resolntion of Apple's summary judgment motion. Apple further objects to the extent that it seeks

Convention on January 9, 2007. In addition, Apple had posted several introductory

tours of the iPhone on its website before launch. Other detailed information, including information regarding features, support details and how to obtain service for the iPhone, was released on June 29, 2007, the day the product went on sale. INTERROGATORY NO. 17:

information to which plaintiff has eqnal access andlor which is already in the possession, custody, or control of plaintiff. Apple further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it andlor statutory rights of privacy.

seeks information protected by common law, constitutional, Apple further objects to this Interrogatory

to the extent that it 'seeks information to which

Did Apple receive any complaint after its release of the iPhone regarding the iPhone battery replacement program, iPhone battery replacement, andlor the cost of iPhone battery body,

plaintiff has eqnal access andlor which is already in the possession, custody, or control of plaintiff. Apple further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad, vague and ambiguous as to time and in its use of the phrase "any enuty, organization, or individnal

replacement from any consumer, member of the media, regulatory agency, investigative consumer advocacy group, consumer rights groups, or any entity, organization, of aoy sort by any means of communication?

or individnal

of any sort." Apple further objects to this Interrogatory on the grouods that it is compound and contains discrete subparts which exceed tbe allowable number of Interrogatories to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Apple responds as follows: After a reasonable inquiry for inquiries from media, regolatory or investigative bodies and pursuant

If yes, identify the date and form of each such

inquiry, to whom it was addressed, from whom it was received, and how Apple responded to each such inquiry.

,f-2461296

23

,f-246

t296

24

consumer advocacy groups, Apple states thal it received a letter from Mindy Bockstein,

the

iPhone out-of-warranty handJing

battery replacement program

-

$79, plus $6.95 shipping and In addition, and

Executive Directnr of the New Y orlc Consumer Protection Board on JuJy 30, 2007, requesting that Apple redesign its iPhone battery to be replaceable by a consumer. Apple responded by

-

was directly accessible from this webpage as of June 29, 2007.

Apple provided iPhones to members of the press in advance of the product's introduction

letter.
INTERROGATORY NO. 18:

their independenl reviews of the iPhone appeared in major newspapers on June 27, 2007, two days before the iPhone went on sale. These published reviews noted that the iPhone battery was not user-replaceable and that there would be a fee for replacement. David Pogue stated in

Other than via its website, how does Apple claim to bave disclosed the tenns and cost of the iPhone battery replacement program on or prior to June 29, 2007? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18: by reference its Preliminary Statemen~ Objections to

his June 27, 2007, review in the New York Times. "Eventually, you'll bave to send the phone to Apple for battery replacernen~ much as you do now with an iPod, for a fee." Walter

Apple refers to and incorporates Plaintift's

Mossberg stated in his June 27, 2007, review in the Wall Street Journal. "Like the iPod, but unlike most cellphones, the iPhone lacks a removable battery." Edward Baig stated in his

Definitions and Instructions, and General Objections as tbough set forth in full

herein. Apple further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad and does not seek the discovery of information relevant to the resolution of Apple's pending swnmary judgment motion nor to the claims and defenses in this case. Apple further objects to the extent that it seeks information to which plaintiff bas equal access andlor which is already in the possession, custody, or control of plaintiff. the grounds that it is unduly burdensome, and discovery requests made by plaintiff. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Apple responds as follows: Apple disclosed the terms and price of the iPhone out-of-warranty battery replacement Apple further objects to this Interrogatory on

June 27, 2007, review in USA Today, iPhone "doesn't bave a removable hattery. . .. You'd bave to send the device to Apple or presumably a third party to swap a spent battery." INTERROGATORY NO. 19: from AT&T Mobility, LLC, for

Does Apple receive a financial benefit andlormonies

iPbones activated with AT&T Mobility, LLC for celluJar service? If yes, please state the basis for calculating said benefit andlor monies (i.e., dollars per phone activated, percentage of each monthiy iPhone cellular phone bill, etc.). RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 19: by reference its Preliminary Statement, Objections to

oppressive and duplicative

of other Interrogatories

Apple refers lo and incorporates Plaintift's Definitions and Instructions,

program in numerous ways. For example, the feature label on the outside of each and every iPhone box as well as the in-box materials and the iPbone User's Guide state that the battery may need to be replaced by an Apple service provider and refer consumers to www.aoole.com/batteries for further information. The specific cost information for the

and General Objections as though set forth in full

herein. Apple further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad and does not seek the discovery of information relevant to the resolution of Apple's pending summary judgment motion nor to the claims and defenses in this case. Apple further objects to this

,'-246t296

25

,'.2461296

26

Interrogatory on the grounds that it is compound and contains discrete subparts which exceed the allowable number oflnterrogalories INTERROGATORY NO. 20: pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33.

Daled: March~, 2008

Respectfully submitted, APPLE INC.

How many drafis of the web pages located at www.annle.comlbatteries/renlacements.htmland www.aonle.com/suonortliohonelservicelbatterv did Defendant design prior to posting same? Patrick T. Stanton (#6216899) Edward S. Weil (#6194191) Schwartz Cooper Chartered 180 North LaSalle Stree~ Suite 2700 Chicago, Illinois 60601 [phone] and

By:( )~;,km.

One oflts Attorneys '

/UUM

For each such draft, indicate the date that the draft was presented for review and date that it was rejected/accepted. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20: by reference its Preliminary Statemen~ Objections to and General Objections as though set forth in full

Penelope A. Preovolos (admitted pro hac vice) Andrew D. MuhJbach Johanna W. Roberts (admitted pro hac vice) Morrison & Foerster LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94!O5 [phone]

Apple refers to and incorporates . Plaintift's Definitions and Instructions,

herein. Apple further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it calls for or would otherwise require the production of documents or infonnation protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege andlor the attorney work product doctrine. Apple further objects

to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and does not seek the discovery ofinformation relevant to the resolution of Apple's pending summary judgment

motion nor to the claims and defenses in this case. Apple further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that il is compound and contains discrete subparts which exceed the allowable number ofInterrogatories pursuant to Federal RuJe of Civil Procedure 33.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Apple responds as follows: After a reasonable inquiry, Apple does not have drafts of www.aonle.comlbatterieslreolacements.htmland www.aonle.com/suonort/iohonelservicelbatterv.

,'-2461296

27

,'-2461296

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICf COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICf OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

JOSE TRUJILLO, individually and on behaJf ofall others similarly situated,

Archis A. Parasharami (Counsel for AT&1) Evan M. Tager Kevin S. Ranlett Mayer Brown LLP 1919 K Stree~ NW Washington,DC 20006 Sarah Eileen Reynolds (Counsel for AT&T) Victoria R. Collado Mayer Brown LLP 71 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606

Plaintiff,

CASE NO.: 07.CV-04946 Judge Kennelly

v.
APPLE COMPUTER, INC., a California corporation and AT&T, Inc., a Texas corporation, Defendants.

1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 27, 2008.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Marci Marcantonio, certify and declare as follows: I am over the age of I 8 years and not a party to this action. My business address is Morrison & Foerster LLP, 425 Market Stree~ San Francisco, California 941 OS, which is located in the city, county and state where the mailing described below took place. On March 27, 2008, I caused to be served a copy of the following documents: RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S OF DEFENDANT APPLE INC. FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

(~

on the following individuals, by United States Postal Service, First Class Mail: James R. Rowe (Counsel for Plaintiff) Larry Daniel Drury Larry D. Drury, Ltd. 205 West Randolph Suite 1430 Chicago, IL 60606

,'.2465960

,'.2465960