Judge Edward J. Davila. Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM.

SAN JOSE — Lawyers vying to lead the multidistrict litigation targeting Apple Inc. with claims related to the diminished performance of older iPhones laid out starkly different visions for what the structure of the plaintiffs' team should look like.

U.S. District Judge Edward Davila of the Northern District of California, who is overseeing about 80 class actions claiming Apple intentionally and surreptitiously slowed down older iPhones to nudge consumers to buy newer devices, heard leadership pitches in front of a courtroom full of about 40 lawyers Thursday, with another 10 or so on the phone.

➤➤ Never miss a litigation story from Law.com. Follow Litigation

While two individual lawyers—Steve Berman, of Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro and William Audet, of San Francisco's Audet & Partners—pitched a lean leadership structure, most of the lawyers present were part of a broad a coalition led by Joseph Cotchett of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy in Burlingame and Laurence King of San Francisco's Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer. The coalition is proposing a much more formalized structure involving 42 lawyers at 40 firms, each with designated tasks. 

At the top of Thursday morning's hearing, Davila laid out some preliminary thoughts on the pitches the lawyers made in their briefing. The judge told Berman, who had pitched his firm's technical expertise, that while he thought the case would involve “significant discovery,” he didn't anticipate the need for people “highly skilled” in computer coding to handle the case. Davila said he was open to Audet's suggestion that a special master or mediator be brought on early in the case to try to push toward a quick resolution. But the judge expressed initial skepticism toward the coalition's large structure.

“I think that's a little large and I think I'd like to see something that's a little more efficient,” Davila said. Davila added he's looking for something a bit more “lean and mean,” but said he wanted to pick a team focused on “cooperation and communication” with everyone involved in the case. Davila also took the unusual step of asking all the plaintiffs counsel if they had received third-party financing to help fund the case. All three groups said that they had not.

➤➤ Want deeper coverage of class action and mass tort litigation. Sign up here for Critical Mass by Amanda Bronstad. 

In another rare move in the run-up to the hearing, Apple's counsel at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher filed a brief expressing concern about the coalition's proposed structure, calling it “a recipe for gridlock, not efficiency.” At Thursday's hearing, Gibson Dunn's Christopher Chorba said it was unusual for Apple or his firm to get involved at the leadership selection stage.

“Two of the three applications before you are saying the same thing we are,” said Chorba, speaking of the smaller pitches' critique of the large one. “We very rarely agree in these cases, but we do agree on that.”

“So you're suggesting start small and grow if you need?” asked the judge.

“Exactly,” said Chorba.

Speaking on behalf of the coalition later in the hearing, Kaplan Fox's David Straite said that starting small and asking the court for permission to grow later could tip the plaintiffs' strategy to Apple via staffing. Straite and others who spoke on the coalition's behalf said it was modeled on the large structure that U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer endorsed in the Volkswagen vehicle emissions cases.

“This team was proposed as a cohesive unit,” Straite said. “A lot of work went into [figuring out] who works well with others … not because of politics, but because we vetted and cooperated and worked together for several months.”

Davila said at the end of the hearing that he hoped to have an order out shortly.