Judge in Apple iPhone Throttling Case Expresses 'Disappointment' Over Sanctions Fight
"The remedy here—I think it's a good remedy—is remove those two counsel,” said Judge Edward Davila of the Northern District of California.
May 30, 2019 at 05:32 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
A federal judge in California said he was troubled to find some of the “best lawyers in the country” arguing for serious sanctions in his San Jose courtroom, when they should be litigating Apple's alleged throttling of older iPhones.
Lawyers representing the tech giant have requested the interim co-lead counsel in the multidistrict litigation be removed over a “blatant and very serious violation” of a protective order that occurred during a motion to dismiss hearing.
“The remedy here—I think it's a good remedy—is remove those two counsel,” said U.S. District Judge Edward Davila of the Northern District of California. “That would be the strongest remedy we can take, and I don't think we'd have a problem. Hopefully that imparts the disappointment of the court that we've taken my valuable, precious time in looking at this issue that was completely unnecessary.”
On March 7, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy principals Joseph Cotchett and Mark Molumphy, representing a class of iPhone users, read from documents labeled “highly confidential—attorneys' eyes only.” Both parties agreed to notify the court before citing confidential materials under an Oct. 15 protective order that covers a large portion of the roughly 7 million documents Apple shared in the case.
The class action seeks damages for Apple users after the company allegedly made fraudulent misrepresentations over unexpected iPhone shutdowns. Apple reportedly slowed the performance of some older devices to prevent battery shutdowns caused by a mismatch between hardware and software demands. The sealed information the Burlingame-based plaintiffs lawyers revealed in court included internal communications between Apple employees on troubleshooting, potential action plans for the battery issue and “negative comments,” according to the motion.
Apple attorney Theodore Boutrous, of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Los Angeles, cited a decision by U.S. District Judge William H. Alsup when he presided over Oracle v. Google in the Northern District of California. Boutrous said that Alsup noted it was a long tradition to first explain a restriction to a judge, even without a protective order explicitly requiring it. “Everybody knows that,” Boutrous said. “We all know you don't just start reading from protected material in open court.”
Boutrous also argued that imposing sanctions would convey the gravity of the offense and how it could have comprised the privacy of Apple employees and users. “We think the court needs to send a strong message not just for this case, but for all cases, that parties cannot just blurt out protected information and leave the court to decide what's protected or not,” he said.
Within the first minute of Cotchett's argument, he began once again citing a part of the transcript that mentioned protected material, which brought the opposing side to their feet. Davila told him to refrain from reading any sealed documents.
Cotchett called the sanctions “silliness,” after writing Apple was manufacturing controversy in a joint opposition, and claimed he told Christopher Chorba, another Gibson Dunn partner, that he planned to read from his declaration, that contained protected documents. “He looked at me, and he didn't say a word,” he said.
In addition to alerting Davila that he was about to read from his declaration, which was labeled under seal, Crotchett said both his team and Chorba cited confidential information during the first 22 minutes without notifying the court. “I really don't know why we're here today, and why this shouldn't be resolved in front of a discovery referee,” he said. “I don't think we did anything wrong, and I don't think they did anything wrong.”
Crotchett questioned the harm as a result of reading from the sealed documents. “Did I read anything in The New York Times?”
In rebuttal, Chorba said he addressed protected documents to set the record straight after Molumphy mischaracterized information.
Molumphy said this is not a misunderstanding of the protective order but a “difference of understanding” in providing sufficient notice of disclosing sealed information.
The problem, Davila said, was though everyone else in the room knew confidential information was being discussed, he might not have, and the protected order is an avenue to inform the court, so that he could make a decision to close the session or take a recess to read the documents and assign a crypted nomenclature.
“Was this a difference of understanding of the rules of the [protected order] so confusing that all your great minds couldn't follow it even though you drafted it?” he said. “I will express some dismay and disappointed with not hearing Mozart with this motion, it's probably closer to Lynyrd Skynyrd, it's somewhat discordant.”
Davila said he would consider the request for sanctions and respond with an order shortly.
As people began filing out of the courtroom, Cotchett and Boutrous shook hands, Cotchett sealing the gesture with a pat on the arm, and told each other “good job.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLitigators of the Week: Kirkland Fends Off Antitrust Claims for Thomson Reuters Against AI-Backed Start-Up
'Corporate Lawyers Who Happen to Litigate': A Closer Look at a Recent Securities Litigation Hot Streak at Freshfields
Litigators of the Week: Robbins Geller Lands $490M Securities Settlement in Case Over Apple's Prospects in China
Cooley Litigation Rainmaker Mike Rhodes Set To Retire: 'It's a Good Time to Hang It Up and Do Something Else'
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft and Pryor Cashman have entered appearances for Diageo Americas Supply d/b/a Ciroc Distilling Co. and Sony Songs, a division of Sony Music Publishing, respectively, in a pending lawsuit. The case was filed Sept. 10 in New York Southern District Court by the Bloom Firm and IP Legal Studio on behalf of Dawn Angelique Richard. The plaintiff, who performed as a member of producer Sean 'Diddy' Combs girl group Danity Kane and later his band, Diddy - Dirty Money, claims that she was financially exploited by Combs and subjected to inhumane working conditions. Among other violations, Richard claims that Combs required group members to remain at his residences and studios, deprived them of adequate food and sleep and forced them to rehearse for 36 to 48 hours without breaks. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla, is 1:24-cv-06848, Richard v. Combs et al.
Who Got The Work
Mathilda McGee-Tubb and Kevin M. McGinty of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, as well as Jesse W. Belcher-Timme of Doherty, Wallace, Pillsbury & Murphy, have stepped in to defend Peter Pan Bus Lines in a pending consumer class action. The suit, filed Sept. 4 in Massachusetts District Court by Hackett Feinberg PC and KalielGold PLLC, accuses the defendant of charging undisclosed 'junk fees' on top of ticket prices during checkout. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Mark G. Mastroianni, is 3:24-cv-12277, Mulani et al v. Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250