throbber

`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 808 Filed 08/20/21 Page 1 of 7
`
`Paul J. Riehle (SBN 115199)
`paul.riehle@faegredrinker.com
`FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE
`& REATH LLP
`Four Embarcadero Center
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Telephone: (415) 591-7500
`Facsimile: (415) 591-7510
`
`
`
`
`Christine A. Varney (pro hac vice)
`cvarney@cravath.com
`Katherine B. Forrest (pro hac vice)
`kforrest@cravath.com
`Gary A. Bornstein (pro hac vice)
`gbornstein@cravath.com
`Yonatan Even (pro hac vice)
`yeven@cravath.com
`Lauren A. Moskowitz (pro hac vice)
`lmoskowitz@cravath.com
`M. Brent Byars (pro hac vice)
`mbyars@cravath.com
`CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
`825 Eighth Avenue
`New York, New York 10019
`Telephone: (212) 474-1000
`Facsimile: (212) 474-3700
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-
`defendant Epic Games, Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`EPIC GAMES, INC.,
`
`Case No. 4:20-cv-05640-YGR-TSH
`
`Plaintiff, Counter-defendant,
`
`Case No. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR-TSH
`
`v.
`
`Case No. 4:19-cv-03074-YGR-TSH
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant, Counterclaimant.
`
`IN RE APPLE IPHONE ANTITRUST
`LITIGATION.
`
`DONALD R. CAMERON, et al.,
`
`EPIC GAMES, INC.’S MOTION FOR
`ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO
`ACCESS SEALED FILINGS IN
`RELATED CASES
`
`Northern District Civil Local Rule 7-11
`
`Judge: Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`EPIC’S MOTION TO ACCESS SEALED FILINGS IN RELATED CASES
`Case Nos. 4:20-cv-05640-YGR-TSH; 4:11-cv-06714-YGR-TSH; 4:19-cv-03074-YGR-TSH
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 808 Filed 08/20/21 Page 2 of 7
`
`
`
`Although trial in Epic v. Apple has concluded, the parties in the related class actions
`continue to brief many issues that are, in Apple’s words, “fundamentally the same” as those the
`Court is considering in connection with its post-trial decision. (Cameron, Dkt. 379 at 23-24.)
`At Apple’s insistence, however, Epic is in the dark. Despite the Court’s statement during the
`Epic v. Apple trial that “One of the reasons why I ordered that class cert . . . be filed was so that
`I could see what they were saying, all of the developers beyond Mr. Sweeney who are in that
`class” (Trial Tr. 4084:10-12), Apple created a blockade by withholding the unredacted class
`certification filings from Epic, and demanding that the class plaintiffs follow suit. It is clear
`from the publicly available versions of the filings that Apple is making representations and
`arguments to the Court about the proceedings in Epic v. Apple while simultaneously refusing to
`provide Epic visibility into what is being said. Without leave to amend the Coordination Order,
`which requires the sharing of expert disclosures, Apple has unilaterally taken the position that
`“it is no longer appropriate to coordinate discovery efforts with Epic pursuant to the Court’s
`[Coordination] Order”. (Bornstein Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A.) Apple’s obstruction is prejudicial and
`baseless. Epic respectfully requests that the Court grant Epic access to all unredacted filings by
`Apple and the class plaintiffs in the related class actions.
`BACKGROUND
`The Coordination Order governing these related actions requires that “[f]uture
`discovery requests, future responses to discovery requests, and future discovery produced in
`response to such requests by parties and non-parties in any of the Related App Store Actions
`shall be served on counsel for all parties in the Related App Store Actions.” (Cameron,
`Dkt. 80, ¶ 2.) It also requires that “all disclosures made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) (i.e.,
`initial disclosures and expert disclosures) shall also be served on counsel for all parties in the
`Related App Store Actions.” (Id. ¶ 6 (emphasis added).) Consistent with the Coordination
`Order, as well as the Amended Protective Orders in Epic v. Apple and the class actions (Epic v.
`Apple, Dkt. 274; Pepper, Dkt. 381; Cameron, Dkt. 252), the parties in the related actions have
`shared confidential information for nearly a year.
`On June 1, 2021, shortly after the Epic v. Apple trial ended, the class plaintiffs in both
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`-1-
`EPIC’S MOTION TO ACCESS SEALED FILINGS IN RELATED CASES
`Case Nos. 4:20-cv-05640-YGR-TSH; 4:11-cv-06714-YGR-TSH; 4:19-cv-03074-YGR-TSH
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 808 Filed 08/20/21 Page 3 of 7
`
`
`related actions filed their motions for class certification. (Pepper, Dkt. 441; Cameron,
`Dkt. 332.) As required by the applicable protective orders, the class plaintiffs made those
`filings under seal, with redacted versions made publicly available. On the morning of June 2,
`2021, after reviewing the public filings and seeing discussion of the record developed at the
`Epic v. Apple trial, Epic requested that the class plaintiffs provide unredacted copies of the
`class certification papers. The next day, Apple instructed the class plaintiffs not to provide
`those filings to Epic, notwithstanding that Epic already possesses all or nearly all the
`documents sought to be sealed or the confidential information the filings discuss. (Bornstein
`Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. B.) Apple stated that it “sees no reason or basis for Developer Plaintiffs to share
`their sealed class certification submission with Epic’s counsel”, and insisted “that Consumer
`and Developer Plaintiffs [in the related class actions] should not send any new materials to
`Epic’s counsel” created or produced in connection with the related class actions—including all
`filings and discovery. (Id.¶ 4, Ex. B.) Apple thereby unilaterally, and improperly, purported to
`terminate the Court’s Coordination Order as it applies to Epic.1
`The parties exchanged letters and telephonically met and conferred, but Apple gave no
`ground. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 6, 8, 9, Exs. C, D.) On August 10 and 11, 2021, Apple filed its oppositions
`to the class certification motions and related materials. Epic requested Apple’s unredacted
`filings on August 13, 2021, and Apple refused to provide them. (Id.¶ 11, Ex. F.)
`DISCUSSION
`Apple’s withholding of the full class certification filings is unjustifiable and prejudicial
`to Epic. These filings address issues that overlap with the issues presented to the Court in the
`Epic v. Apple trial. While that matter remains sub judice, Epic should be able to see what the
`parties in the class actions are telling the Court, just as Apple can.
`The parties in the class actions frequently cite Epic documents and witnesses,
`characterize the trial record in Epic v. Apple, and use Epic as an example. The following
`
`
`1 Epic’s outside counsel possesses the unredacted copies of the Consumer Plaintiffs’ class
`certification motion and the accompanying expert report found at Pepper, Dkt. No. 443, which
`the Consumer Plaintiffs provided before Apple issued its instruction on June 3, 2021. But
`Epic’s outside counsel does not have unredacted copies of any of the other sealed filings.
`
`-2-
`EPIC’S MOTION TO ACCESS SEALED FILINGS IN RELATED CASES
`Case Nos. 4:20-cv-05640-YGR-TSH; 4:11-cv-06714-YGR-TSH; 4:19-cv-03074-YGR-TSH
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 808 Filed 08/20/21 Page 4 of 7
`
`
`arguments by Apple are illustrative:
`
`• “Plaintiffs launch fundamentally the same assault as did Epic on Apple’s business
`model—alleging that Apple monopolized a single-brand iOS app distribution market by
`requiring developers to sell iOS apps through the App Store, and seeking an order
`forcing Apple to provide a compulsory license to its IP.” (Cameron, Dkt. 379 at 23-24.)
`
`• “Following roughly in the footsteps of Dr. Evans in the Epic case . . . Professor
`Economides proceeds to make a set of arbitrary assumptions regarding competitive
`entry and its consequences for operating profits that are unsupported by economic
`theory or evidence and employs them to come up with a completely indefensible
`competitive benchmark rate. Professor Lafontaine’s description of Dr. Evans’ similar
`analysis applies here as well: what Professor Economides ‘has produced in reality is an
`algebraic exercise, not an economic analysis.’” (Schmalensee Decl. ¶ 82 (quoting
`Lafontaine Written Direct ¶113, filed in Epic v. Apple).)
`
`• “Even with its below-cost commission, EGS can only attract developers with a spate of
`incentives, like minimum guarantees, such that Epic’s 12% commission does not
`accurately reflect its pricing.” (Pepper, Dkt. 479 at 11.)
`
`• “[T]he EGS commission rate [cannot] be divorced from Epic’s ‘Project Liberty’
`campaign, including its litigation against Apple.” (Id. at 12.)
`Similarly, Apple’s declarations in support of its class certification filings reveal that
`many of the redacted materials are documents produced by Epic and deposition transcripts of
`Epic’s witnesses. (See, e.g., Pepper, Dkt. No. 475 at 1-5 (attaching as support for Apple’s
`filings four deposition transcripts of Epic witnesses and six Epic documents).)2
`Given the focus on Epic v. Apple in the unredacted portions of these filings, it is
`reasonable to expect there is a similar focus in the redacted portions. And there is a lot of
`redacted content. For example, Apple filed declarations from seven experts—four of whom
`
`
`2 More broadly, Apple’s discovery strategy in the class actions appears to include re-
`litigating Epic v. Apple. For instance, Apple recently moved to compel production of
`communications between Epic’s counsel and the Developer Plaintiffs’ counsel. (Cameron,
`Dkt. 370 (Joint Letter Brief).) Apple has also pressed Microsoft to produce communications
`with Epic’s counsel and even with Epic’s experts. (Bornstein Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. E.)
`
`-3-
`EPIC’S MOTION TO ACCESS SEALED FILINGS IN RELATED CASES
`Case Nos. 4:20-cv-05640-YGR-TSH; 4:11-cv-06714-YGR-TSH; 4:19-cv-03074-YGR-TSH
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 808 Filed 08/20/21 Page 5 of 7
`
`
`were experts in Epic v. Apple—entirely under seal. (Pepper, Dkt. 478; Cameron, Dkt. 373.)
`Based on the language Epic is able to see in partially redacted copies containing Epic’s
`confidential information that Apple provided pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e), it is clear
`that several of the Apple experts who also testified in Epic v. Apple not only rely on their
`analyses and reports from that matter, but also inappropriately and repeatedly attempt to
`relitigate their disputes with Epic’s experts. Professor Schmalensee frequently purports to
`characterize the arguments Dr. Evans made in Epic’s case, both to criticize them and use them
`as a benchmark when discussing the views of class plaintiffs’ experts. (E.g., Schmalensee
`Decl. ¶ 78 (“I agree with Professor Elhauge that the way to avoid the inverse Cellophane
`Fallacy, to which Dr. Evans fell victim, is to use an estimate of the competitive price rather
`than the prevailing price.”).) Dr. Hitt repeatedly refers to his Epic v. Apple report and attempts
`to defend his prior arguments. (E.g., Hitt Decl. ¶ 272.) And Drs. Hitt and Willig rely on a
`study of Epic’s data that Dr. Hitt presented in Epic’s case. (Id. ¶¶ 257-259, App’x D ¶¶ 35-43;
`Willig Decl. ¶¶ 132-135.) Epic is aware of these examples because they involve Epic’s
`confidential information. But these four declarations contain numerous redactions (presumably
`mostly for Apple confidential information), and Epic has no access at all to the declarations of
`the remaining experts, two of whom (Mr. Malackowski and Dr. Rubin) testified in Epic v.
`Apple. Epic is unambiguously entitled to these declarations.
`Apple wishes to equate Epic with a run-of-the-mill third party in the related actions.
`But that is neither the reality nor the law of the case, where discovery in these proceedings has
`proceeded jointly under the Coordination Order—including the discovery that produced the
`information Apple now seeks to hide from Epic. Because Apple (but not Epic) can access the
`sealed versions of these filings, the parties are on unequal footing. Epic lacks the ability to
`review for accuracy, or seek corrections of, the class action parties’ voluminous assertions
`about Epic v. Apple and Epic’s business. By withholding this information from Epic, Apple
`has manufactured circumstances where it can speak about Epic’s business and the Epic v. Apple
`trial record under seal, and Epic has no ability to evaluate Apple’s assertions.
`The prejudice to Epic is acute because Apple appears to have used its class certification
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`-4-
`EPIC’S MOTION TO ACCESS SEALED FILINGS IN RELATED CASES
`Case Nos. 4:20-cv-05640-YGR-TSH; 4:11-cv-06714-YGR-TSH; 4:19-cv-03074-YGR-TSH
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 808 Filed 08/20/21 Page 6 of 7
`
`
`filings to relitigate arguments against Epic in a forum where Epic cannot respond or even view
`Apple’s arguments. For example, Apple cites the supposedly “uncontradicted” testimony from
`Tim Cook about the App Store’s P&Ls (Cameron, Dkt. 380 at 2), and an expert declaration of
`James Malackowski—who served as Apple’s IP expert in Epic v. Apple—to bolster Apple’s
`assertion that its App Store P&Ls are not “fully-burdened” (Pepper, Dkt. 479 at 16 n.3). Epic
`strongly disputed Mr. Cook’s testimony about the App Store P&Ls during trial in Epic v.
`Apple, and Mr. Malackowski’s declaration appears to contain an attempted rebuttal to the
`opinions offered by Epic’s accounting expert, Ned Barnes, about the App Store P&Ls. Even
`the redacted declarations Apple provided Epic pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e) reference
`analyses of this topic and others that are either largely redacted or found in expert declarations
`(including Mr. Malackowski’s) that Apple did not provide Epic for confidentiality review.
`Not only is Apple’s position prejudicial to Epic, it is baseless. When asked during a
`meet and confer what prejudice Apple may suffer if Epic reviewed the unredacted class action
`filings, Apple suggested Epic might disclose the sealed information to others. Apple has no
`basis to suggest Epic cannot be trusted to abide by the protective orders. Moreover, Epic
`already has access to all or nearly all the information beneath the redactions through discovery.
`Apple’s stated concern is pretextual.
`Nor has Apple cited authority supporting its position. During meet and confers with
`Epic, Apple cited two cases where parties sought new discovery after trial. See Aldridge ex rel.
`United States v. Corp. Mgmt. Inc., 2021 WL 1521697, at *1 (S.D. Miss. Apr. 16, 2021); CPR
`Assocs., Inc. v. Se. Pennsylvania Chapter of Am. Heart Ass’n, 1990 WL 200267, at *2 (E.D.
`Pa. Dec. 3, 1990). Neither case involved a situation like this, where Epic seeks access to
`unredacted filings in related cases to prevent Apple from prejudicing Epic in its own case.
`CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Epic respectfully requests that the Court grant this Motion
`and order that Epic be provided unredacted versions of all sealed filings by Apple and the class
`plaintiffs in the related class actions.
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`-5-
`EPIC’S MOTION TO ACCESS SEALED FILINGS IN RELATED CASES
`Case Nos. 4:20-cv-05640-YGR-TSH; 4:11-cv-06714-YGR-TSH; 4:19-cv-03074-YGR-TSH
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 808 Filed 08/20/21 Page 7 of 7
`
`Dated: August 20, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
`
`Christine Varney (pro hac vice)
`Katherine B. Forrest (pro hac vice)
`Gary A. Bornstein (pro hac vice)
`Yonatan Even (pro hac vice)
`Lauren A. Moskowitz (pro hac vice)
`M. Brent Byars (pro hac vice)
`
`FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
`
`Paul J. Riehle
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`By:
`/s/ Gary A. Bornstein
`Gary A. Bornstein
`Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-defendant
`Epic Games, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`EPIC’S MOTION TO ACCESS SEALED FILINGS IN RELATED CASES
`Case Nos. 4:20-cv-05640-YGR-TSH; 4:11-cv-06714-YGR-TSH; 4:19-cv-03074-YGR-TSH
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket