Case 3:21-cv-09078-JD Document 35 Filed 04/18/22 Page 1 of 21
`
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`BENJAMIN A. POWELL (SBN 214728)
` Benjamin.Powell@wilmerhale.com
`DAVID W. BOWKER (SBN 200516)
` David.Bowker@wilmerhale.com
`MOLLY M. JENNINGS (pro hac vice pending)
` Molly.Jennings@wilmerhale.com
`JULIAN M. BEACH (SBN 312988)
` Julian.Beach@wilmerhale.com
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone: (202) 663-6000
`
`SONAL N. MEHTA (SBN 222086)
` Sonal.Mehta@wilmerhale.com
`2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400
`Palo Alto, California 94306
`Telephone: (650) 600-5051
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Apple Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 3:21-cv-09078-JD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`v.
`
`NSO GROUP TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED and
`Q CYBER TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,
`
`Defendants.
`
`IN
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW
`OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`Hearing Date: June 2, 2022
`Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m.
`Judge: Hon. James Donato
`
`CASE NO. 3:21-cv-09078-JD OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`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 3:21-cv-09078-JD Document 35 Filed 04/18/22 Page 2 of 21
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENT
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................................2
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................3
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Defendants’ Immunity Defense is Foreclosed by Ninth Circuit Precedent .........................3
`
`This Court is the Proper Venue for this Litigation ..............................................................4
`
`III.
`
`Defendants’ Unidentified Customers Are Not Indispensable Parties ..................................9
`
`IV. Defendants’ Creation And Use Of Abusive Exploits Violated The CFAA .......................10
`
`V.
`
`Defendants’ CFAA Violations Also Violate The California UCL’s
`Unlawful Prong ..................................................................................................................13
`
`VI.
`
`Apple Adequately States a Claim in the Alternative for Unjust Enrichment ....................15
`
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................15
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:21-cv-09078-JD OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`- i-
`
`
`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 3:21-cv-09078-JD Document 35 Filed 04/18/22 Page 3 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Adobe Systems Inc. v. Blue Source Group, Inc.,
`125 F. Supp. 3d 945 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ...............................................................................14
`
`Air Turbine Technology, Inc. v. Atlas Copco AB, 217 F.R.D. 545 (S.D. Fla. 2003) .......................7
`
`Allergan, Inc. v. Athena Cosmetics, Inc., 738 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ....................................14
`
`Andrews v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., 932 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2019) .................................................12
`
`Argoquest Holdings, LLC v. Israel Discount Bank, Ltd.,
`228 F. App’x 733 (9th Cir. 2007) ........................................................................................5
`
`Astiana v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., 783 F.3d 753 (9th Cir. 2015) ............................................15
`
`Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. United States District Court for Western
`District of Texas, 571 U.S. 49 (2013) ..................................................................................4
`
`AtPac, Inc. v. Aptitude Solutions, Inc., 730 F. Supp. 2d 1174 (E.D. Cal. 2010) ...........................12
`
`Beaver v. Tarsadia Hotels, 816 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2016) ...........................................................13
`
`Belhas v. Ya’alon, 515 F.3d 1279 (D.C. Cir. 2008) .........................................................................4
`
`Benny v. Pipes, 799 F.2d 489 (9th Cir. 1986) ..................................................................................4
`
`Bloate v. United States, 559 U.S. 196 (2010) ................................................................................12
`
`Broidy Capital Management, LLC v. Qatar, No. 18-cv-2421-JFW,
`2018 WL 6074570 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2018) .......................................................................9
`
`Butters v. Vance International, Inc., 225 F.3d 462 (4th Cir. 2000) .................................................4
`
`Carijano v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 643 F.3d 1216 (9th Cir. 2011) .......................................6
`
`Cave Consulting Group, Inc. v. Truven Health Analytics Inc.,
`No. 15-cv-02177-SI, 2017 WL 1436044 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2017) .................................14
`
`Clarke v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 501 F. Supp. 3d 774 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ..............................14
`
`Contact Lumber Co. v. P.T. Moges Shipping Co.,
`918 F.2d 1446 (9th Cir. 1990) .............................................................................................7
`
`Dawavendewa v. Salt River Project, 276 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2002) ..............................................9
`
`Dole Food Co. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2002) ..................................................................6
`
`CASE NO. 3:21-cv-09078-JD OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`- ii-
`
`
`
`
`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 3:21-cv-09078-JD Document 35 Filed 04/18/22 Page 4 of 21
`
`
`
`Dongxiao Yue v. Chun-Hui Miao, No. 18-3467-MGL-PJG,
`2019 WL 5872142 (D.S.C. June 27, 2019)........................................................................14
`
`EEOC v. Peabody Western Coal Co., 610 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2010) .............................................9
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc., 844 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2016) .......................................12
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Rankwave Co., No. 19-cv-03738-JST,
`2019 WL 8895237 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2019) ....................................................................6
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Studivz Ltd., No. C-08-3468-JF,
`2009 WL 1190802 (N.D. Cal. May 4, 2009) .......................................................................8
`
`Fahrner-Miller Associates, Inc. v. Mars Antennas & RF Systems, Ltd.,
`No. 14-cv-03668-PSG, 2014 WL 6871550 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2014) .................................6
`
`Flextronics International, Ltd. v. Parametric Technology Corp.,
`No. 13-cv-00034-PSG, 2014 WL 2213910 (N.D. Cal. May 28, 2014) .............................12
`
`Gates Learjet Corp. v. Jensen, 743 F.2d 1325 (9th Cir. 1984) ........................................................8
`
`Gerritsen v. Warner Brothers Entertainment Inc.,
`112 F. Supp. 3d 1011 (C.D. Cal. 2015) .............................................................................10
`
`Global Commodities Trading Group, Inc. v. Beneficio de Arroz Choloma, S.A.,
`972 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2020) .....................................................................................4, 6, 7
`
`In re California Gasoline Spot Market Antitrust Litigation, No 20-cv-03131-JSC,
`2021 WL 1176645 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2021) ...................................................................15
`
`In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products
`Liability Litigation, MDL No. 15-md-02672-CRB,
`2017 WL 66281 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2017) ............................................................................7
`
`Israel Discount Bank Ltd. v. Schapp, 505 F. Supp. 2d 651 (C.D. Cal. 2007) .................................6
`
`Kimberlite Corp. v. John Does 1-20, No. C08-2147-TEH,
`2008 WL 2264485 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2008) .....................................................................12
`
`Lundy v. Facebook Inc., No. 18-cv-06793-JD,
`2021 WL 4503071 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2021) ..................................................................15
`
`Multiven, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 725 F. Supp. 2d 887 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ...............................12
`
`Nexans Wires S.A. v. Sark-USA, Inc., 319 F. Supp. 2d 468 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) ...............................12
`
`Nowak v. Xapo, Inc., No. 20-cv-03643-BLF,
`2020 WL 6822888 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 11, 2020) ..................................................................12
`
`Piper Aircraft v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981) .................................................................................6
`
`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 NO. 3:21-cv-09078-JD OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`- iii-
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09078-JD Document 35 Filed 04/18/22 Page 5 of 21
`
`
`
`Roman v. Superior Court, 172 Cal. App. 4th 1462 (2009) ..............................................................5
`
`Sajfr v. BBG Communications, Inc., No. 10-cv-2341-AJB,
`2012 WL 398991 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2012) .......................................................................14
`
`San Francisco Herring Ass’n v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.,
`No. 14-cv-04393-WHO, 2020 WL 6736930 (N.D. Cal. June 15, 2020) ...........................15
`
`Shierkatz Rllp v. Square, Inc., No. 15-cv-02202-JST, 2015 WL 9258082
`(N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2015) ....................................................................................................5
`
`Shular v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 779 (2020) ..............................................................................13
`
`Silicon Labs Integration, Inc. v. Melman, No. C-08-0430-RMW,
`2009 WL 2044663 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2009) ........................................................................8
`
`Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 254 P.3d 237 (Cal. 2011) ......................................................................14
`
`Tahan v. Hodgson, 662 F.2d 862 (D.C. Cir. 1981)..........................................................................8
`
`Theofel v. Farey-Jones, 359 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2004) .......................................................1, 10, 11
`
`Ticketmaster L.L.C. v. Prestige Entertainment West, Inc.,
`315 F. Supp. 3d 1147 (C.D. Cal. 2018) .............................................................................12
`
`Tompkins v. 23andMe, Inc., 840 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2016) ............................................................5
`
`United States v. Gomez Lopez, 62 F.3d 304 (9th Cir. 1995) ...........................................................3
`
`United States v. Nosal, 676 F.3d 854 (9th Cir. 2012) ....................................................................13
`
`Van Buren v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1648 (2021) ...........................................................1, 12, 13
`
`WhatsApp Inc. v. NSO Group Technologies Ltd., 17 F.4th 930 (9th Cir. 2021) .........................3, 4
`
`WhatsApp Inc. v. NSO Group Technologies Ltd.,
`472 F. Supp. 3d 649 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ...........................................................7, 9, 10, 11, 12
`
`White Knight Yacht LLC v. Certain Lloyds at Lloyd’s London,
`407 F. Supp. 3d 931 (S.D. Cal. 2019) ..................................................................................5
`
`Yes To, Ltd. v. Hur, 779 F. Supp. 2d 1054 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ...........................................................5
`
`STATUTES AND RULES
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5) ...................................................................................................................11
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(8) .............................................................................................................10, 11
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(11) .................................................................................................................12
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1030(g) .......................................................................................................................10
`CASE NO. 3:21-cv-09078-JD OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`- iv-
`
`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 3:21-cv-09078-JD Document 35 Filed 04/18/22 Page 6 of 21
`
`
`
`28 U.S.C. §1603 ...............................................................................................................................3
`
`28 U.S.C. §1605 ...............................................................................................................................3
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(1)(A) ..............................................................................................................7
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1 ..........................................................................................................................8
`
`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 NO. 3:21-cv-09078-JD OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`- v-
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09078-JD Document 35 Filed 04/18/22 Page 7 of 21
`
`
`
`The Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”) should be denied because Defendants NSO Group
`
`Technologies Limited and Q Cyber Technologies Limited are twenty-first century mercenaries
`
`who have created sophisticated cyber-surveillance machinery targeting Apple, a U.S. company
`
`based in this jurisdiction. Apple has rights under U.S. law, California law, and binding Terms of
`
`Service to redress in this Court for its injuries.
`
`Defendants claim to have the sovereign immunity of the government customers that
`
`purchase their hacking tools, but the Ninth Circuit rejected that very argument when these same
`
`Defendants made it in a similar computer fraud and abuse case. And for good reason. Private
`
`companies engaged in computer fraud and abuse for profit have no claim to the immunity that U.S.
`
`law grants to foreign states for their sovereign acts. In any case, Defendants waived any
`
`jurisdictional objections when they affirmatively agreed to Apple’s Terms of Service and thereby
`
`agreed to exclusive jurisdiction in this Court.
`
`Defendants’ forum non conveniens argument fares no better. The relevant public and
`
`private factors overwhelmingly favor this Court as the proper forum and, in any case, Defendants
`
`waived any claim to convenience when they affirmatively agreed that jurisdiction in this Court is
`
`both mandatory and exclusive.
`
`Defendants’ “indispensable parties” argument also fails because every issue in this
`
`litigation can be adjudicated between Apple and the Defendants, without the involvement of any
`
`of Defendants’ government customers. Indeed, this Court can afford complete relief by awarding
`
`damages and enjoining Defendants’ conduct without binding or requiring action by any third party.
`
`Defendants are also wrong that Apple cannot bring a CFAA claim for unlawful access to
`
`devices owned by its users. The Ninth Circuit has rejected that crabbed reading of the CFAA,
`
`recognizing that “[i]ndividuals other than the computer’s owner may be proximately harmed by
`
`unauthorized access.” Theofel v. Farey-Jones, 359 F.3d 1066, 1078 (9th Cir. 2004). Similarly,
`
`Defendants’ contention that Apple has not alleged cognizable “damage” or “loss” under the CFAA
`
`is based on an implausible statutory interpretation that is both untethered to the Complaint’s actual
`
`allegations and foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent. Van Buren v. United States, 141 S. Ct.
`
`1648, 1659-1660 (2021). Defendants’ violations of the CFAA also suffice to establish an
`
`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 NO. 3:21-cv-09078-JD OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`- 1-
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09078-JD Document 35 Filed 04/18/22 Page 8 of 21
`
`
`
`independent claim under California’s unfair competition law, which creates a private cause of
`
`action for the victims of an “unlawful … business act or practice.” And finally, courts in this
`
`circuit, including this one, have recognized a cause of action for unjust enrichment seeking
`
`equitable remedies pled in the alternative to breach of contract.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`Since NSO’s founding in 2010, Defendants have been in the business of computer hacking
`
`and surveillance, accomplished by targeting and infecting computers, smartphones, and other
`
`devices—including Apple’s. Compl. ¶¶ 2, 40. Defendants’ flagship hacking tool, “Pegasus,” is
`
`capable of commandeering a device’s camera and microphone and revealing any personal data it
`
`contains. Id. ¶¶ 41-42. Defendants invest enormous time and resources researching, developing,
`
`and deploying hacks, also known as “exploits,” tailor-made to install its Pegasus software on Apple
`
`devices. Id. ¶¶ 45-47. Defendants’ products and services are routinely deployed against
`
`government officials, journalists, human rights activists, academics, and even U.S. diplomats. See
`
`id. ¶¶ 2, 12, 42-44. NSO’s conduct has thus led to widespread condemnation by the international
`
`community, including sanctions imposed by the U.S. Commerce Department for “enabl[ing]
`
`foreign governments to conduct transnational repression” and commit human rights abuses. See
`
`id. ¶ 3. Even after government customers purchase Defendants’ hacking wares, Defendants remain
`
`involved in deployment of their spyware through every step of the Pegasus lifecycle, from design
`
`and development to testing, demonstrating, training, consulting and providing technical assistance
`
`in coordinating attacks on Apple devices, servers, and users. Id. ¶ 52.
`
`
`
`In March 2021, cybersecurity researchers detected a new exploit on Apple devices, which
`
`they named “FORCEDENTRY.” Compl. ¶¶ 48-49. FORCEDENTRY is a “zero-click” exploit,
`
`which allows Defendants to hack into an Apple device without any action or awareness by the
`
`user. Id. ¶ 49. Defendants accomplished these attacks by creating Apple IDs and contacting Apple
`
`servers in the United States and abroad to identify and target protected computer devices. Id. ¶¶
`
`50-51. In creating these Apple IDs, Defendants affirmatively agreed to the iCloud Terms of
`
`Service (“iCloud Terms”) for each account. Id. ¶¶ 46, 51. Defendants then sent abusive data
`
`through iMessage to disable critical security operations within the iOS software long enough to
`
`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 NO. 3:21-cv-09078-JD OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`- 2-
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09078-JD Document 35 Filed 04/18/22 Page 9 of 21
`
`
`
`deliver the Pegasus payload. Id. ¶ 51. To render the spyware, these exploits accessed both device
`
`hardware, such as the iPhone’s microphones and cameras, and the iOS operating system on user’s
`
`devices. Id. ¶ 41, 67. Once installed, Pegasus would transmit sensitive personal data to a
`
`command-and-control server operated by Defendants (or their clients with Defendants’ assistance
`
`and support). Id. ¶ 52.
`
`Apple has incurred substantial losses from these unauthorized hacking activities. For
`
`example, Apple was required to divert engineers from across the company and expend thousands
`
`of hours and significant company resources investigating, analyzing, reverse-engineering, and
`
`remediating Defendants’ FORCEDENTRY exploit together with anticipatory measures to update
`
`Apple systems’ defenses to prevent future unauthorized access and attacks. Compl. ¶¶ 54, 56-61.
`
`Even today, Apple continues to discover harm to its proprietary servers and systems, as well as
`
`user devices, and suffers ongoing damage to its reputation. Id. ¶¶ 59-61.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I. Defendants’ Immunity Defense is Foreclosed by Ninth Circuit Precedent.
`
`Defendants have no claim to sovereign immunity. It is undisputed that NSO and Q Cyber,
`
`two private corporations organized in Israel, are neither states nor agencies or instrumentalities of
`
`states, and thus enjoy no protection under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. See 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1603, 1605. The Ninth Circuit recently held that NSO, “a private corporation that provides
`
`products and services to sovereigns … is not entitled to the protection of foreign sovereign
`
`immunity.” WhatsApp Inc. v. NSO Grp. Tech. Ltd., 17 F.4th 930, 940 (9th Cir. 2021) (rejecting
`
`foreign official immunity), petition for cert. filed, No. 21-1338 (U.S. Apr. 8, 2022). As Defendants
`
`concede, Mot. 5 n.2, the WhatsApp decision binds this court and forecloses Defendants’ immunity
`
`arguments.1
`
`Even if the common-law immunity Defendants claim could apply to private entities,
`
`Defendants would not qualify for it. An agent of a foreign state is entitled to such immunity only
`
`
`1 Defendants’ petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc were denied, and the Ninth Circuit’s
`opinion is binding notwithstanding a stay of the mandate. See United States v. Gomez Lopez, 62
`F.3d 304, 306 (9th Cir. 1995).
`
`CASE NO. 3:21-cv-09078-JD OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`- 3-
`
`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 3:21-cv-09078-JD Document 35 Filed 04/18/22 Page 10 of 21
`
`
`
`(1) “with respect to acts performed in his official capacity” (2) where “the effect of exercising
`
`jurisdiction would be to enforce a rule of law against the state.” Belhas v. Ya’alon, 515 F.3d 1279,
`
`1285 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (quotations omitted (cited Mot. 5))).2 Defendants did not act in any “official
`
`capacity” on behalf of any foreign state; to the contrary, they acted on their own behalf according
`
`to commercial contracts with state clients. Mot. 2-3. Furthermore, nothing about the exercise of
`
`subject matter jurisdiction here would involve enforcing a rule of law against any state—only
`
`against Defendants themselves. Finally, even if Defendants had a legitimate claim to immunity—
`
`which they do not—it would not protect them here because they waived any immunity or other
`
`jurisdictional objection when they affirmatively agreed to this Court’s mandatory, exclusive
`
`jurisdiction as part of Apple’s Terms of Service. See infra pp. 4-5.
`
`II. This Court is the Proper Venue for this Litigation.
`
`The doctrine of forum non conveniens, “‘an exceptional tool to be employed sparingly,’”
`
`Global Commodities Trading Group, Inc. v. Beneficio de Arroz Choloma, S.A., 972 F.3d 1101,
`
`1111 (9th Cir. 2020), is no help to Defendants here. Defendants consented to litigate in this forum
`
`when they agreed to the iCloud Terms, which provide for mandatory and exclusive jurisdiction
`
`here. Defendants also fall far short of carrying their burden to show that “‘the balance of private
`
`and public interest factors favors dismissal.’” Id.3
`
`A. The iCloud Terms Foreclose Defendants’ Forum Non Conveniens Argument.
`
`Defendants do not dispute that they agreed to the iCloud Terms, which contain a binding
`
`forum-selection clause. “[W]hen the parties’ contract contains a valid forum-selection clause, that
`
`clause ‘represents [their] agreement as to the most proper forum,’ and should be ‘given controlling
`
`weight in all but the most exceptional cases.’” Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for
`
`W. Dist. of Texas, 571 U.S. 49, 51 (2013) (citations omitted). In forum non conveniens cases,
`
`
`2 Defendants’ reliance on Butters v. Vance International, Inc., 225 F.3d 462 (4th Cir. 2000), is
`equally misplaced; as the Ninth Circuit has already held, Butters does not suggest that any form
`of common-law immunity could “extend to foreign contractors acting on behalf of foreign
`states.” WhatsApp, 17 F.4th at 939 n.6.
`3 By not contesting personal jurisdiction in their motion, Defendants have waived any personal-
`jurisdiction defense. See Benny v. Pipes, 799 F.2d 489, 492 (9th Cir. 1986).
`
`CASE NO. 3:21-cv-09078-JD OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`- 4-
`
`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 3:21-cv-09078-JD Document 35 Filed 04/18/22 Page 11 of 21
`
`
`
`“[t]he practical result is that forum-selection clauses will almost always control.” White Knight
`
`Yacht LLC v. Certain Lloyds at Lloyd’s London, 407 F. Supp. 3d 931, 943 (S.D. Cal. 2019).
`
`Defendants agreed to the iCloud Terms when they created Apple IDs.4 Compl. ¶¶ 22, 50-
`
`51. Under those terms, Defendants “agree[d] to submit to the personal and exclusive jurisdiction
`
`of the courts located within the county of Santa Clara, California, to resolve any dispute or claim
`
`arising from this Agreement.” Compl. Ex. 1 at 19. Apple’s breach of contract claim “aris[es]”
`
`directly from the iCloud Terms. Compl. ¶¶ 87-89; see White Knight Yacht, 407 F. Supp. 3d at 944
`
`(breach of contract claims “paradigmatically fall within a contractual forum selection clause”).
`
`And Plaintiff’s CFAA, unjust enrichment, and unfair competition causes of action likewise arise,
`
`in part, out of Plaintiff’s misuse of Apple IDs, systems, and services governed by the iCloud Terms.
`
`See Compl. ¶¶ 66-67, 75-76, 81-82, 89.
`
`Courts routinely enforce such clauses. In Yes To, Ltd. v. Hur, for example, the court
`
`enforced a forum-selection clause that—like Apple’s—designated the courts of a specified
`
`California county as “the exclusive venue” for certain disputes. 779 F. Supp. 2d 1054, 1056 (N.D.
`
`Cal. 2011); see also White Knight Yacht, 407 F. Supp. 3d at 943 (enforcing clause stating “this
`
`insurance is subject to the law and practice of England and Wales and to the exclusive jurisdiction
`
`of the Courts of England and Wales” (emphasis omitted)). By contrast, Defendants have not
`
`identified a single forum non conveniens dismissal in favor of Israel over a valid forum-selection
`
`clause. Though they suggest (Mot. 5-6) that courts “‘routinely … dismiss cases on the grounds
`
`that it would be more appropriate to hear a case in Israel,’” each of those cases supports Apple
`
`because they involved a forum-selection clause that mandated that the parties bring their disputes
`
`in Israel. See Argoquest Holdings, Inc. v. Israel Discount Bank, Ltd., 228 F. App’x 733 (9th Cir.
`
`
`4 Defendants have not contested the applicability of the iCloud Terms, presumably because
`standardized terms of service are binding on sophisticated parties that voluntarily agree to such
`terms when they sign up for services. See, e.g., Tompkins v. 23andMe, Inc., 840 F.3d 1016, 1028
`(9th Cir. 2016); Shierkatz Rllp v. Square, Inc., 2015 WL 9258082, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17,
`2015) (rejecting unconscionability challenge from “highly sophisticated” parties); Roman v.
`Superior Court, 172 Cal. App. 4th 1462, 1471 & n.2 (2009) (parties that voluntarily agreed to
`terms can claim only “minimal” oppression). Here, Defendants acted voluntarily and repeatedly
`agreed to the iCloud Terms as part of their unlawful hacking. Compl. ¶¶ 22, 86.
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:21-cv-09078-JD OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`- 5-
`
`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 3:21-cv-09078-JD Document 35 Filed 04/18/22 Page 12 of 21
`
`
`
`2007) (contract stated that “the sole forum would be the courts of Israel”); Fahrner-Miller
`
`Associates, Inc. v. Mars Antennas & RF Sys., Ltd., 2014 WL 6871550, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4,
`
`2014) (agreement provided that “[a]ny litigation resulting from this agreement may take place only
`
`in a court of competent jurisdiction situated in Israel.”); Israel Discount Bank Ltd. v. Schapp, 505
`
`F. Supp. 2d 651, 661 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (plaintiff was an Israeli citizen who had entered into a
`
`foreign forum selection clause).
`
`B. The Forum Non Conveniens Factors Weigh Against Dismissal.
`
`In any case, the public and private factors weigh overwhelmingly in favor of this Court as
`
`the proper forum. To obtain a forum non conveniens dismissal, “‘a defendant bears the burden of
`
`demonstrating an adequate alternative forum, and that the balance of private and public interest
`
`factors favors dismissal.’” Global Commodities, 972 F.3d at 1111. Defendants have not, and
`
`cannot, show that “the ‘private interest’ and ‘public interest’ factors strongly favor” Israel over
`
`this forum. Dole Food Co. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104, 1118-1119 (9th Cir. 2002) (emphasis added).
`
`Private-Interest Factors. The private-interest factors—which focus on the forum’s
`
`convenience to the parties, including access to evidence and witnesses—weigh in favor of
`
`maintaining this dispute in California. It is well-established that there is a “strong presumption in
`
`favor of the plaintiff’s choice of forum,” particularly where the plaintiff is a “resident or citizen
`
`plaintiff[]” and “has chosen the home forum.” Piper Aircraft v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 255-256
`
`(1981). This is true even where the plaintiff is a multinational corporation. See, e.g., Facebook,
`
`Inc. v. Rankwave Co., 2019 WL 8895237, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2019). Buttressing that
`
`presumption are the facts that Apple is headquartered in California, was attacked and suffered
`
`injury in this forum, and has witnesses and evidence in this forum. Compl. ¶¶ 15, 54-61.
`
`Meanwhile, Defendants’ claimed burdens about litigating in California are unavailing.
`
`Given the parties’ respective locations and international presence, the convenience of the parties
`
`is at best neutral and points against dismissal. Carijano v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 643 F.3d
`
`1216, 1229-1230 (9th Cir. 2011) (noting that convenience factor is neutral where similar logistical
`
`considerations would apply in either forum and reversing dismissal where private factors were
`
`neutral). Indeed, another court in this district has already rejected similar claims by these same
`
`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 NO. 3:21-cv-09078-JD OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
`- 6-
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09078-JD Document 35 Filed 04/18/22 Page 13 of 21
`
`
`
`Defendants that Israel is a more suitable forum, see WhatsApp Inc. v. NSO Group Technologies
`
`Ltd., 472 F. Supp. 3d 649, 677 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (subsequent history omitted) (holding that
`
`requiring NSO to litigate in California was consistent with due process)—and for good reason.
`
`Defendants are “highly lucrative” companies who contract with foreign governments, utilize
`
`servers and data centers located in the United States and Europe for their attacks, and conduct
`
`funding and marketing activities within the United States. Compl. ¶¶ 11, 25, 27, 43, 55. After
`
`broadcasting their international presence, licensing their technologies to nations around the globe,
`
`and assisting in international cyber-attacks against American companies, they cannot now be heard
`
`to argue that it would be “inconvenient” to litigate here. Forum non conveniens dismissal is
`
`inappropriate where a defendant “has substantial resources and consequently will face no financial
`
`difficulties in bringing witnesses to the forum.” In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Mktg., Sales
`
`Practices, and Prods. Liab. Litig., 2017 WL 66281, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2017).
`
`Defendants fare no better threatening that their witnesses may not be willing to testify in
`
`this Court. See Mot. 6. For one, these potential witnesses are NSO’s own employees and are
`
`therefore “within [NSO’s] control.” Contact Lumber Co. v. P.T. Moges Shipping Co., 918 F.2d
`
`1446, 1451 (9th Cir. 1990). Nothing prevents those witnesses from testifying, either in person or
`
`through videoconferencing, as appropriate. To the extent they are NSO’s directors, officers,
`
`managing agents, or Rule 30(b)(6) corporate designees, NSO must produce them for deposition or
`
`else face sanctions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(1)(A). For any other employees, the primary obstacle
`
`would be NSO withholding its consent, as illustrated by its own authorities, see Mot. 6 (citing Air
`
`Turbine Tech., Inc. v. Atlas Copco AB, 217 F.R.D. 545, 546 (S.D. Fla. 2003) (suggesting that court
`
`could hear testimony under Rule 43(a) from Sweden-based employees via “agreement between
`
`the parties”)). Moreover, Defendants cite no authority for the proposition that their own refusal to
`
`provide required discovery supports dismissal for forum non conveniens. To the contrary,
`
`Defendants’ suggestion that it or its employees will refuse to appear is not a legitimate ground for
`
`dismissal; “[t]hat some witnesses would prefer to appear in [the alternative forum] falls well short
`
`of a c