`
`THEODORE J. BOUTROUS JR., SBN 132099
`
`tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
`RICHARD J. DOREN, SBN 124666
`rdoren@gibsondunn.com
`DANIEL G. SWANSON, SBN 116556
`dswanson@gibsondunn.com
`JAY P. SRINIVASAN, SBN 181471
`jsrinivasan@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`333 South Grand Avenue
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: 213.229.7000
`Facsimile: 213.229.7520
`
`VERONICA S. MOYÉ (Texas Bar No.
`24000092; pro hac vice)
` vlewis@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`2100 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1100
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Telephone: 214.698.3100
`Facsimile: 214.571.2900
`
`
`
`
` MARK A. PERRY, SBN 212532
`mperry@gibsondunn.com
`CYNTHIA E. RICHMAN (D.C. Bar No.
`492089; pro hac vice)
`crichman@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20036
`Telephone: 202.955.8500
`Facsimile: 202.467.0539
`
`ETHAN D. DETTMER, SBN 196046
`edettmer@gibsondunn.com
`RACHEL S. BRASS, SBN 219301
`rbrass@gibsondunn.com
`CAELI A. HIGNEY, SBN 268644
`chigney@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`555 Mission Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Telephone: 415.393.8200
`Facsimile: 415.393.8306
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`
`In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` CASE NO. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR
`
`DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S OPPOSITION
`TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE
`TO FILE FOURTH AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`The Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
`
`Date: Nov. 16, 2021
`Time: 2:00 p.m.
`Courtroom: 1, 4th Floor
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOT. FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AM. COMPLAINT
`
`NO. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR
`
`
`
`Case 4:11-cv-06714-YGR Document 558 Filed 10/22/21 Page 2 of 26
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
`RELEVANT BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY .............................................. 2
`LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................................... 5
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................ 7
`A.
`Plaintiffs Cannot Satisfy Rule 16’s Good Cause Standard Because They Were
`Not Diligent in Seeking to Add a UCL Claim .............................................................. 7
`Alternatively, Plaintiffs Cannot Satisfy Rule 15 ......................................................... 10
`1.
`Plaintiffs’ Amendment Would Prejudice Apple ............................................. 11
`2.
`Plaintiffs Unduly Delayed in Seeking Leave to Amend ................................. 15
`3.
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed Amendment Would Be Futile ........................................ 17
`4.
`Plaintiffs Already Have Filed Five Iterations of Their Complaint ................. 18
`5.
`The Timing of Plaintiffs’ Proposed Amendment Reflects Bad Faith ............. 19
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 20
`
`B.
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`i
`
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOT. FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AM. COMPLAINT
`
`NO. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR
`
`
`
`Case 4:11-cv-06714-YGR Document 558 Filed 10/22/21 Page 3 of 26
`
`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
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`CASES
`
`Acri v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers,
`781 F.2d 1393 (9th Cir. 1986) ...................................................................................................11, 16
`
`Ahlmeyer v. Nev. Sys. Of Higher Educ.,
`555 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2009) ...........................................................................................................7
`
`Albers v. Yarbrough World Sols., LLC,
`2020 WL 6064334 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2020) .................................................................................19
`
`Allen v. City of Beverly Hills,
`911 F.2d 367 (9th Cir. 1990) ...........................................................................................................10
`
`AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc.,
`465 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2006) ...........................................................................................................15
`
`Bayer v. Neiman Marcus Grp., Inc.,
`861 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2017) ...........................................................................................................12
`
`In re California Gasoline Spot Mkt. Antitrust Litig.,
`2021 WL 1176645 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2021) ................................................................................17
`
`Campos v. Cty. Of Riverside,
`2016 WL 9173450 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2016) ....................................................................................6
`
`Castellucci v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
`2020 WL 4873869 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2020) ..................................................................................6
`
`Chowning v. Kohl’s Dep’t Stores, Inc.,
`735 F. App’x 924 (9th Cir. 2018), amended on denial of reh’g,
`733 F. App’x 404 (9th Cir. 2018) ...................................................................................................13
`
`City of L.A. v. San Pedro Boat Works,
`635 F.3d 440 (9th Cir. 2011) ...........................................................................................................11
`
`Davis v. 630 W. Broadway, LLC,
`2019 WL 2764118 (C.D. Cal. July 2, 2019) ...................................................................................11
`
`Dekker v. Vivint Solar, Inc.,
`2021 WL 3565428 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2021) ................................................................................17
`
`Domingo v. Los Angeles Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t,
`2020 WL 5356657 (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2020) ................................................................................15
`
`Dong Ah Tire & Rubber Co. v. Glasforms, Inc.,
`2009 WL 667171 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2009) ....................................................................................7
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`ii
`
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOT. FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AM. COMPLAINT
`
`NO. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR
`
`
`
`Case 4:11-cv-06714-YGR Document 558 Filed 10/22/21 Page 4 of 26
`
`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
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Dream Marriage Grp., Inc. v. Anastasia Int’l, Inc.,
`2012 WL 3024227 (C.D. Cal. July 23, 2012) .................................................................................16
`
`E.E.O.C. v. Boeing Co.,
`843 F.2d 1213 (9th Cir. 1988) .........................................................................................................16
`
`Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc.,
`316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) ...........................................................................................................6
`
`Erica P. John Fund, Inc., v. Halliburton Co.,
`563 U.S. 804 (2011) ........................................................................................................................13
`
`Felarca v. Birgeneau,
`2014 WL 7140262 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2014) ......................................................................9, 10, 17
`
`Freeney v. Bank of Am. Corp.,
`2016 WL 5897773 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2016) ..................................................................................18
`
`In re Fritz Comp. Secs. Litig.,
`282 F. Supp. 2d 1105 (N.D. Cal. 2003) ..........................................................................................15
`
`Gardiner v. Walmart Inc.,
`2021 WL 2520103 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2021) ..................................................................................18
`
`Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson,
`534 U.S. 204 (2002) ........................................................................................................................12
`
`Griggs v. Pace Am. Grp., Inc.,
`170 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 1999) .......................................................................................................7, 18
`
`Guzman v. Polaris Indus. Inc.,
`2021 WL 2021454 (C.D. Cal. May 12, 2021) ................................................................................18
`
`Heredia v. Sunrise Senior Living LLC,
`2021 WL 811856 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2021) .......................................................................................9
`
`Heredia v. Sunrise Senior Living LLC,
`2021 WL 819159 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2021) .............................................................................17, 18
`
`Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii,
`902 F.2d 1385 (9th Cir. 1990) .............................................................................................10, 11, 15
`
`Jackson v. Laureate, Inc.,
`186 F.R.D. 605 (E.D. Cal. 1999) ......................................................................................................6
`
`James v. J2 Cloud Servs. Inc.,
`2019 WL 184330 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2019) .....................................................................................8
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`iii
`
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOT. FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AM. COMPLAINT
`
`NO. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR
`
`
`
`Case 4:11-cv-06714-YGR Document 558 Filed 10/22/21 Page 5 of 26
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Johnson v. Mammoth Recs., Inc.,
`975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) .............................................................................................................6
`
`Jones v. Cty. Of Tulare,
`2018 WL 6271577 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2018) ..................................................................................8
`
`Jordan v. Los Angeles Cty.,
`669 F.2d 1311 (9th Cir. 1981), judgment vacated on other grounds in
`Cty. of Los Angeles v. Jordan, 459 U.S. 810 (1982) .......................................................................16
`
`Ketab Corp. v. Mesriani Law Grp.,
`2016 WL 5920291 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2016) .................................................................................18
`
`Ketayi v. Health Enrollment Grp.,
`2021 WL 2864481 (S.D. Cal. July 8, 2021) ...................................................................................17
`
`Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Sols., Inc.,
`194 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 1999) ...............................................................................................15, 17, 19
`
`Macias v. KDF Foxdale, L.P.,
`No. 5:18-cv-07712-EJD, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77392 (N.D. Cal. May 1, 2020) ........................14
`
`Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co.,
`666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) ...........................................................................................................13
`
`Mortg. Indus. Sols., Inc. v. Collabera, Inc.,
`2013 WL 440644 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2013) .................................................................................9, 18
`
`Nguyen v. Saxon Mortg. Servs., Inc.,
`2011 WL 2600998 (D. Or. June 30, 2011) .....................................................................................11
`
`In re NJOY, Inc. Consumer Class Action Litig.,
`120 F. Supp. 3d 1050 (C.D. Cal. 2015)...........................................................................................13
`
`Novoa v. Geo Grp., Inc.,
`2019 WL 7197298 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2019) ................................................................................14
`
`Pasha v. Viscosi,
`No. 2:19-cv-05672, 2020 WL 586821 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2020) ......................................................6
`
`Phan v. Sargento Foods, Inc.,
`2021 WL 2224260 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2021) ..................................................................................17
`
`Quezada v. City of Los Angeles,
`2018 WL 4378661 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2018) ..................................................................................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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`iv
`
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOT. FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AM. COMPLAINT
`
`NO. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR
`
`
`
`Case 4:11-cv-06714-YGR Document 558 Filed 10/22/21 Page 6 of 26
`
`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
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Rhynes v. Stryker Corp.,
`2011 WL 2149095 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2011) ................................................................................17
`
`Royal Insurance Company of America v. Southwest Marine,
`194 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 1999) .........................................................................................................16
`
`In re Silver Wheaton Corp. Secs. Litig.,
`2018 WL 1517130 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2018) ..................................................................................6
`
`Snapkeys, Ltd. v. Google LLC,
`2021 WL 1839700 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2021) ..................................................................................11
`
`Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp.,
`971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020) .......................................................................................................2, 17
`
`Sonoma Cty. Ass’n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma Cty.,
`708 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) .........................................................................................................14
`
`Stein v. United Artists Corp.,
`691 F.2d 885 (9th Cir. 1982) .....................................................................................................15, 16
`
`Texaco v. Ponsoldt,
`939 F.2d 794 (9th Cir. 1991) .......................................................................................................9, 15
`
`In re Toll Roads Litig.,
`2018 WL 4945531 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2018) ...................................................................................13
`
`Trans Video Elecs., Ltd. v. Sony Elecs., Inc.,
`278 F.R.D. 505 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ....................................................................................................20
`
`United States v. United Healthcare Ins. Co.,
`848 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2016) .........................................................................................................14
`
`Velazquez v. GMAC Mortg. Corp.,
`2009 WL 2959838 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2009) ................................................................................11
`
`In re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig.,
`715 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 2013), aff’d sub nom.
`Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., 575 U.S. 373 (2015) .................................................................6, 15, 18
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) ................................................................................................................................6
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) ...........................................................................................................................6
`
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`v
`
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOT. FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AM. COMPLAINT
`
`NO. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR
`
`
`
`Case 4:11-cv-06714-YGR Document 558 Filed 10/22/21 Page 7 of 26
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`The long procedural history of this case provides reason enough for the Court to deny Consumer
`Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their complaint—again. After the Epic case was filed, these
`plaintiffs were allowed to amend their complaint; and then the Court established an integrated and
`interlocking schedule for all three cases (Cameron, Pepper, and Epic). The Court expressly stated it
`wanted the benefit of the class certification briefing before ruling in Epic. Plaintiffs did not ask, and
`the Court did not order, that Plaintiffs could await the outcome of Epic and then play a mulligan.
`The possibility of a UCL claim was no mystery to Plaintiffs before they filed the instant motion.
`The Cameron plaintiffs, after all, had asserted such a claim years ago. So did Epic in its August 2020
`complaint. But when Plaintiffs amended their complaint in September 2020 (the fifth iteration of their
`complaint since filing this action in 2011), they chose not to add a UCL claim. Plaintiffs then watched
`the Epic trial unfold, including the Court’s comments about Epic’s UCL claim at the closing hearing.
`But Plaintiffs still did not seek to add a UCL claim to their case. Instead, Plaintiffs forged ahead with
`their class certification motion, which was based on the operative complaint. Apple responded to that
`motion on its own terms, explaining (with substantial expert support) why Plaintiffs had not carried
`their burden of proving that their Sherman Act claims could be tried to judgment on a classwide basis.
`Only after the principal briefs and expert reports regarding certification had been filed, and Epic re-
`ceived a favorable ruling on its UCL claim, did Plaintiffs mention, for the first time in ten years, the
`possibility of adding a claim for restitution under the UCL.
`Whether analyzed under Rule 15 or Rule 16, a plaintiff must show diligence in amending a
`complaint, and further amendment is prohibited if the plaintiff knew about the factual basis for a claim
`but waited years before adding it to the complaint. There is no exception to this principle that permits
`a plaintiff to await the outcome of a related case before deciding whether to seek leave to amend.
`Plaintiffs’ belated motion for leave to amend should be denied.
`Here, Plaintiffs plainly admit they have been aware of the facts underlying their UCL claim for
`a decade—indeed, they contend their “UCL claim is based on the same allegations as the Sherman Act
`claims” they pleaded in 2011. Mot. 1. Plaintiffs’ proposed amendment simply recites the elements of
`a UCL claim and refers back to the identical factual allegations pleaded in support of their Sherman
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`1
`
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOT. FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AM. COMPLAINT
`
`NO. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR
`
`
`
`Case 4:11-cv-06714-YGR Document 558 Filed 10/22/21 Page 8 of 26
`
`
`Act claims. And while the UCL ruling in Epic was limited to the so-called anti-steering provisions of
`the Guidelines, neither Plaintiffs’ complaint (nor the proposed amendment) include any allegations
`about steering or the “tying” theory that underlay Epic’s steering claim. In any event, Plaintiffs never
`point to any reason why they could not have added the UCL claim to their complaint years ago. That
`alone defeats their motion for leave to amend.
`Plaintiffs’ motion fails for numerous other reasons, including because of the prejudice it would
`cause Apple, which would have to re-brief class certification and conduct additional expert discovery
`on, among other things, the basis for any claim of classwide injury resulting from an alleged UCL
`violation and Plaintiffs’ new restitution theory. Plaintiffs’ proposed amendment would also be futile.
`Plaintiffs never allege why the legal remedy they seek (damages) is inadequate, requiring dismissal of
`their equitable restitution claim under Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020).
`For these reasons—and others—leave to amend should be denied.
`
`RELEVANT BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`II.
`Plaintiffs filed this action on December 29, 2011, alleging three claims under the Sherman Act:
`unlawful monopolization of the purported applications aftermarket; attempted monopolization of the
`applications aftermarket; and conspiracy to monopolize the purported iPhone voice and data services
`aftermarket. Dkt. 1.
`After Apple moved to dismiss, Plaintiffs consolidated their case with Terrell v. Apple, No. 3:12-
`cv-00259, and filed a new Consolidated Complaint. Dkt. 26. The Consolidated Complaint alleged the
`same three causes of action. Apple moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint, and the Court
`granted Apple’s motion on April 16, 2012 with leave to amend. Dkt. 40. Plaintiffs filed an Amended
`Complaint on September 28, 2012 (their third complaint in this case), alleging the same three causes
`of action. Dkt. 81. In the CMC statement filed on December 6, 2012, Plaintiffs represented that they
`“do not anticipate amending the pleadings at this time.” Dkt. 98.
`Apple moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and on August 15, 2013, the Court granted
`Apple’s motion with leave to amend. On September 5, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Com-
`plaint (their fourth in this case), alleging the two Sherman Act claims that are asserted in the operative
`Complaint: unlawful monopolization of the applications aftermarket, and attempted monopolization
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`2
`
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOT. FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AM. COMPLAINT
`
`NO. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR
`
`
`
`Case 4:11-cv-06714-YGR Document 558 Filed 10/22/21 Page 9 of 26
`
`
`of the applications aftermarket. Dkt. 111. Apple again moved to dismiss, and on December 2, 2013,
`the Court granted Apple’s motion and dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice. Dkt. 124.
`Appeals were taken to the Ninth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme
`Court issued its decision on May 13, 2019.
`On June 4, 2019, the Developers filed their complaint, which included a UCL claim, in
`Cameron. The Court related Cameron with this case. Dkt. 168.
`On July 31, 2019, Apple filed its Answer to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. Dkt. 166.
`On September 30, 2019, Plaintiffs again represented that they “do not anticipate amending the plead-
`ings at this time.” Dkt. 174.
`On October 7, 2019, and January 9, 2020, the Court issued case management orders and di-
`rected Plaintiffs to file their class certification motion by September 30, 2020. Dkt. 198. On June 2,
`2020, pursuant to a request by the parties to extend discovery deadlines in light of the COVID-19
`pandemic, the Court entered a Modified Schedule, which required Plaintiffs to file their class certifi-
`cation motion by February 3, 2021. Dkt. 209. The order also set trial for July 11, 2022.
`Meanwhile, on August 13, 2020, Epic filed its complaint, which included a UCL claim.
`On September 11, 2020, Plaintiffs and Apple filed a stipulation regarding Plaintiffs’ Third
`Amended Complaint. Dkt. 228. Plaintiffs stated that their amendment would expand their “relevant
`market” to include (1) all iOS applications, including those made for iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch; and
`(2) all purchases made through Apple’s iOS App Store, including apps purchases and purchases for
`additional app features and subscriptions, and to add allegations concerning Apple’s $x.99 pricing.
`Apple stated that Plaintiffs had not been diligent in adding these claims, and preserved all defenses in
`light of Plaintiffs’ lack of diligence. Dkt. 228.1 The Court entered an order a few days later permitting
`Plaintiffs to file their Third Amended Complaint. Dkt. 229.
`On October 12, 2020, Plaintiffs again represented to the Court that they “do not at this time
`
` 1 For example, Apple stated: “Consumer Plaintiffs have not been diligent in pursuing claims for
`purchases made on the iPod touch or iPad, for in-app purchases, or for the App Store’s $x.99 pricing
`because the iPod touch was introduced in September 2007, the iPad was introduced in April 2010, in-
`app purchasing was introduced in June 2009, and the App Store has had $x.99 pricing in the United
`States since it opened in July 2008; thus these products and features of the App Store were all intro-
`duced well before Consumer Plaintiffs Pepper, Schwartz and Hayter filed their lawsuit in December
`2011 and before Consumer Plaintiff Lawrence filed his lawsuit in May 2019, and were also known to
`Consumer Plaintiffs Pepper, Schwartz and Hayter at the time of their prior amendments.” Dkt. 229.
`3
`
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOT. FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AM. COMPLAINT
`
`NO. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`Case 4:11-cv-06714-YGR Document 558 Filed 10/22/21 Page 10 of 26
`
`
`anticipate further amending their pleading.” Dkt. 244.
`On November 23, 2020, Plaintiffs asked to extend their class certification deadline to April 16,
`2021. Dkt. 282-3. Plaintiffs represented that the extension would not violate the Court’s request to
`have “the ‘full scope’ of Plaintiffs’ class certification requests at the time of Epic’s trial.” Id. at 1.
`Plaintiffs assured the Court that “[u]nder the proposed schedule, the Court will have Plaintiffs’ class
`certification motions and expert reports when Epic’s trial begins.” Id.; see also Dkt. 294. This was in
`response to the Court’s repeated requests for Plaintiffs to brief their legal theories before the Epic trial.
`See, e.g., Dkt 330 (“The Court continues to maintain that understanding plaintiffs’ theories prior to the
`bench trial in Epic Games v. Apple Inc., will allow for a more thoughtful adjudication of the myriad
`matters which are currently pending.”).
`On January 8, 2021, the Court set new class certification deadlines and ordered Plaintiffs to file
`their class certification motion by June 1, 2021 (shortly after the Epic trial was expected to conclude),
`with a hearing on November 16, 2021. Dkt. 362. On February 22, 2021, Plaintiffs again represented
`to the Court that they “do not currently anticipate further amendments to their pleadings.” Dkt. 415.
`On May 3, 2021, trial in Epic began. At trial, the Court referred to the anti-steering provisions
`several times, including on days when Plaintiffs’ counsel was present. See, e.g., Trial Tr. 1325:5–8
`(Brittany DeJong appearance); Trial Tr. 1552:9–12 (the Court asking Epic’s expert whether he “did an
`analysis where Apple maintained its App Store but eliminated the anti-steering provision in their con-
`tract”); Trial Tr. 1832:17–18 (Mark Rifkin appearance); Trial Tr. 1892:25–1893:7 (The Court:
`“[T]here is zero availability to know that you have a different option with the – with the – on the app,
`whereas that did not exist [in Amex] … [W]hat’s so bad about it anyway, to have consumers have
`choice?”); Trial Tr. 4059:21–22 (Betsy Manifold appearance); Trial Tr. 4135:25–4136:6 (The Court:
`“So anti-steering provisions seem[] anticompetitive. I understand that Amex held to the contrary, but
`as I indicated, again, I’ll go back and check the record, in Amex the market reality, I suspect, was not
`the market reality here, which is that people don’t know.”). And at the closing hearing on May 24, the
`Court specifically commented on Epic’s UCL cause of action. See Epic Tr. 4096:15–18 (The Court:
`“There is some California law that suggests that incipient antitrust violations and conduct that violates
`the spirit of the antitrust laws does, in fact, constitute an UCL violation.”).
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`4
`
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOT. FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AM. COMPLAINT
`
`NO. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR
`
`
`
`Case 4:11-cv-06714-YGR Document 558 Filed 10/22/21 Page 11 of 26
`
`
`
`One week later, on June 1, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their class certification motion—which only
`sought certification of claims under the Sherman Act. Dkt. 441. The parties engaged in extensive
`expert discovery regarding the class-certification theories in Plaintiffs’ motion. Plaintiffs’ economist,
`Daniel McFadden, submitted a 175-page report on antitrust injury and damages, Dkt. 442-11, and Ap-
`ple deposed Prof. McFadden on August 3, 2021, see Dkt. 475 at 3. On August 10, Apple filed its class
`certification opposition brief supported by expert declarations from four economists, a consumer sur-
`vey expert, and experts in security, intellectual property, and accounting.2 Dkts. 473, 478. Plaintiffs
`deposed five of these experts earlier this month. See Dkt. 556 ¶¶ 7–12.
`On September 10, 2021, the Court issued its Rule 52 Order After Trial in Epic, ruling against
`Epic on all of its federal and state antitrust claims. See Epic Dkt. 812 (“Epic Op.”). Relevant here, the
`Court found that Epic’s alleged relevant market—a single-brand aftermarket for iOS app distribution
`much like the one alleged in Plaintiffs’ complaint, see TAC ¶¶ 73–77—was “fundamentally flawed”
`and “ignore[d] the market reality that is available to consumers.” Epic Op. at 132. And it found that
`Apple had “valid and non-pretextual business reasons for restricting app distribution” to the App Store,
`id. at 145, rejecting Epic’s antitrust challenge to the very same conduct challenged in Plaintiffs’ com-
`plaint. See TAC ¶¶ 79, 84 (challenging centralized App Store distribution under Section 2). However,
`the Court also concluded that two anti-steering provisions in Apple’s App Store Review Guidelines are
`“unfair” within the meaning of the UCL, and enjoined enforcement of those provisions. Epic Op. at
`164, 167–68.
`On September 13, 2021, Plaintiffs notified Apple that they intended to file a motion for leave
`to file a Fourth Amended Complaint (which would be their sixth complaint in this case), and on October
`8, Plaintiffs filed their motion. Plaintiffs’ proposed Fourth Amended Complaint does not include any
`allegations regarding any anti-steering provisions, nor does it allege that Plaintiffs lack an adequate
`remedy at law.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`“[W]hen a party seeks to amend a pleading after the pretrial scheduling order’s deadline for
`amending the pleadings has expired, the moving party must satisfy the ‘good cause’ standard of Federal
`
` 2 One of Apple’s economic experts has since had to withdraw for personal reasons; three of Apple’s
`other experts adopted certain of his opinions. See Dkt. 534.
`5
`
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOT. FOR LEAVE TO FILE FOURTH AM. COMPLAINT
`
`NO. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`Case 4:11-cv-06714-YGR Document 558 Filed 10/22/21 Page 12 of 26
`
`
`Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4).” Pasha v. Viscosi, No. 2:19-cv-05672, 2020 WL 586821, at *1 (C.D.
`Cal. Feb. 5, 2020) (quoting In re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 737 (9th
`Cir. 2013)). Under Rule 16, “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s
`consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). That is because “[a] scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of
`paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.” Quezada v. City of
`Los Angeles, 2018 WL 4378661, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2018) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recs.,
`Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610–11 (9th Cir. 1992)).
`“Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the
`amendment.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. If the party seeking amendment “was not diligent, the inquiry
`should end.” Id. “Good cause may be found where the moving party shows it assisted the court with
`creating a workable scheduling order, that it is unable to comply with the scheduling order’s deadlines
`due to matters not reasonably foreseeable at the time the scheduling order issued, and that it was diligent
`in seeking a modification once it became apparent it could not comply with the scheduling order.”
`Campos v. Cty. Of Riverside, 2016 WL 9173450, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2016) (quoting Jackson v.
`Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999)). “The Court also considers the existence and
`degree of prejudice to the non-moving parties in determining whether there is good cause to permit
`modification.” In re Silver Wheaton Corp. Secs. Litig., 2018 WL 1517130, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 26,
`2018) (citing Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609).
`“Only where Rule 16’s good cause standard is met must a court consider whether amendment
`is prop