Case 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 465 Filed 02/14/22 Page 1 of 36
`
`
`
`Steve W. Berman (pro hac vice)
`Robert F. Lopez (pro hac vice)
`Ted Wojcik (pro hac vice)
`HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
`1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
`Seattle, WA 98101
`Telephone: (206) 623-7292
`Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
`steve@hbsslaw.com
`robl@hbsslaw.com
`tedw@hbsslaw.com
`
`Shana E. Scarlett (SBN 217895)
`Benjamin J. Siegel (SBN 256260)
`Ben M. Harrington (SBN 313877)
`HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
`715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
`Berkeley, CA 94710
`Telephone: (510) 725-3000
`Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
`shanas@hbsslaw.com
`bens@hbsslaw.com
`benh@hbsslaw.com
`
`Interim Lead Class Counsel
`
`[Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page]
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`
`DONALD R. CAMERON, et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 4:19-cv-03074-YGR
`
`DEVELOPER PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE
`OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR
`ATTORNEYS’ FEES,
`REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES,
`AND SERVICE AWARDS
`
`Date:
`June 7, 2022
`Time:
`2:00 p.m.
`Judge: Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
`Location: Courtroom 1- 4th Floor
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`010818-11/1791141 V1
`
`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 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 465 Filed 02/14/22 Page 2 of 36
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 7, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the
`matter may be heard by the Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the United States District Court
`for the Northern District of California, located in Courtroom 1, at 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA
`94612, Developer Plaintiffs will and hereby do move the Court for an award of attorneys’ fees,
`reimbursement of expenses, and service awards. This motion is based on this notice of motion and
`motion, the accompanying memorandum of points and authorities, the declarations in support of
`the motion, argument by counsel at the hearing before this Court, any papers filed in reply, such
`oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing of this motion, and all papers
`and records on file in this matter.
`
`DEVELOPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES – i
`Case No. 4:19-cv-03074-YGR
`010818-11/1791141 V1
`
`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 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 465 Filed 02/14/22 Page 3 of 36
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................... 1
`
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY ........................................................................................... 2 
`
`III. 
`
`THE WORK UNDERTAKEN BY THE DEVELOPER PLAINTIFFS ........................ 3 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`Class Counsel completed a substantial pre-litigation
`investigation that led to a comprehensive, well-pleaded
`complaint. ........................................................................................................... 3 
`
`Class Counsel engaged in substantial discovery efforts on behalf
`of the Settlement Class. ...................................................................................... 3
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`Class Counsel coordinated with counsel for Consumer
`Plaintiffs and Epic to obtain critical discovery. ...................................... 3
`
`Class Counsel completed substantial written and
`document discovery. ............................................................................... 4 
`
`Class Counsel took and defended more than twenty fact
`and 30(b)(6) depositions. ........................................................................ 6 
`
`Class Counsel and their experts undertook a large amount of
`expert discovery and analysis critical to class certification. ............................... 6 
`
`Class Counsel conducted extensive work on an amicus brief and
`a comprehensive motion for class certification and settled
`strategically with Apple to maximize recovery for the Settlement
`Class. .................................................................................................................. 7 
`
`IV. 
`
`THE SETTLEMENT OBTAINED VALUABLE MONETARY AND
`STRUCTURAL RELIEF. .............................................................................................. 8 
`
`V. 
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................. 9 
`
`A. 
`
`Class Counsel’s fee request is reasonable. ....................................................... 10 
`
`1. 
`
`The requested fee award is reasonable under a
`percentage-of-the-fund analysis. .......................................................... 11 
`
`a. 
`
`Class Counsel achieved exceptional results for the
`Settlement Class, including generating benefits
`beyond the cash settlement fund. .............................................. 12 
`
`b. 
`
`This case posed enormous risks and challenges. ...................... 15 
`
`DEVELOPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES – ii
`Case No. 4:19-cv-03074-YGR
`010818-11/1791141 V1
`
`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 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 465 Filed 02/14/22 Page 4 of 36
`
`
`
`c. 
`
`d. 
`
`e. 
`
`The market rate for antitrust class action lawyers
`supports the fee request. ........................................................... 17 
`
`Counsel’s litigation on a contingency basis supports
`the fee request. .......................................................................... 18 
`
`The burdens faced by Class Counsel support the fee
`request. ...................................................................................... 19 
`
`2. 
`
`A lodestar cross-check confirms the reasonableness of
`the requested fees. ................................................................................ 19 
`
`Lead Class Counsel requests authorization to distribute fees
`among Class Counsel. ...................................................................................... 23 
`
`The litigation expenses advanced were reasonable and necessary
`to secure the benefits obtained for the Class. ................................................... 23 
`
`Plaintiffs request that the two class representatives be awarded
`reasonable service awards to compensate them for their
`dedication to this case. ...................................................................................... 24 
`
`The Class received appropriate notice of Class Counsel’s fee
`application. ....................................................................................................... 25 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`VI. 
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 25 
`
`
`
`
`
`DEVELOPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES – iii
`Case No. 4:19-cv-03074-YGR
`010818-11/1791141 V1
`
`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 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 465 Filed 02/14/22 Page 5 of 36
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Pages(s)
`
`In re Animation Workers Antitrust Litig.,
`2016 WL 6663005 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 11, 2016) .................................................................... 20
`
`In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig.,
`2018 WL 3960068 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2018) .................................................................... 10
`
`In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litig.,
`2021 WL 1022866 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2021) .............................................................. 10, 11
`
`In re Aremissoft Corp. Secs. Litig.,
`210 F.R.D. 109 (D.N.J. 2002) ............................................................................................. 22
`
`In re Auto. Refinishing Paint Antitrust Litig.,
`617 F. Supp. 2d 336 (E.D. Pa. 2007) ................................................................................... 15
`
`Beckman v. KeyBank, N.A.,
`293 F.R.D. 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ......................................................................................... 22
`
`In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................. 10, 19, 20, 21
`
`Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert,
`444 U.S. 472 (1980) ............................................................................................................ 10
`
`In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig.,
`2016 WL 3648478 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2016). ...................................................................... 13
`
`In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig.,
`2016 WL 4126533 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2016) ...................................................................... 17
`
`Ching v. Siemens Indus., Inc.,
`2014 WL 2926210 (N.D. Cal. June 27, 2014) ..................................................................... 18
`
`In re Corel Corp., Inc. Secs. Litig.,
`293 F. Supp. 2d 484 (E.D. Pa. 2003) ................................................................................... 13
`
`de Mira v. Heartland Emp’t Serv., LLC,
`2014 WL 1026282 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2014) .................................................................... 11
`
`Dyer v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`303 F.R.D. 326 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ........................................................................................ 21
`
`Hartless v. Clorox Co.,
`273 F.R.D. 630 (S.D. Cal. 2011) ......................................................................................... 23
`
`DEVELOPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES – iv
`Case No. 4:19-cv-03074-YGR
`010818-11/1791141 V1
`
`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 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 465 Filed 02/14/22 Page 6 of 36
`
`
`
`Hensley v. Eckerhart,
`461 U.S. 424 (1983) ............................................................................................................ 11
`
`Hopkins v. Stryker Sales Corp.,
`2013 WL 496358 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2013) ......................................................................... 19
`
`In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Economy Litigation,
`926 F.3d 539 (9th Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................... 17
`
`Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc.,
`526 F.2d 67 (9th Cir. 1975) ........................................................................................... 20, 21
`
`King Drug Co. of Florence v. Cephalon, Inc. (Provigil),
`2015 WL 12843830 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 15, 2015) ..................................................................... 22
`
`Larsen v. Trader Joe’s Co.,
`2014 WL 3404531 (N.D. Cal. July 11, 2014) ..................................................................... 14
`
`In re Lidoderm Antitrust Litig.,
`2018 WL 11375216 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2018) .................................................................. 17
`
`In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig.,
`2004 WL 1221350 (E.D. Pa. June 2, 2004) ......................................................................... 15
`
`In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litig.,
`2020 WL 7264559 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2020) ........................................................ 13, 15, 23
`
`Meijer, Inc. v. Abbott Labs. (Norvir),
`2011 WL 13392313 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2011) .................................................................. 18
`
`In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Sec. Litig.,
`618 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................... 25
`
`In re NCAA Grant-in-Aid Cap Antitrust Litig.,
`2017 WL 6040065 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2017) .......................................................... 13, 18, 20
`
`In re Omnivision Techs., Inc.,
`559 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ............................................................................... 23
`
`In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig.,
`779 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2015) ........................................................................................ passim
`
`In re Pac. Enters. Sec. Litig.,
`47 F.3d 373 (9th Cir. 1995) ................................................................................................. 17
`
`Perez v. Rash Curtis & Assocs,
`2020 WL 1904533 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2020) ............................................................... 10, 21
`
`Resurrection Bay Conserv. Alliance v. City of Seward,
`640 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................. 20
`
`DEVELOPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES – v
`Case No. 4:19-cv-03074-YGR
`010818-11/1791141 V1
`
`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 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 465 Filed 02/14/22 Page 7 of 36
`
`
`
`Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp.,
`563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................... 24
`
`Stanger v. China Elec. Motor, Inc.,
`812 F.3d 734 (9th Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................... 20
`
`Staton v. Boeing Co.,
`327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) ......................................................................................... 12, 14
`
`Steiner v. Am. Broad. Co., Inc.,
`248 F. App’x 780 (9th Cir. 2007) ........................................................................................ 21
`
`Steinfeld v. Discover Fin. Servs.,
`2014 WL 1309692 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2014) .................................................................... 21
`
`Stetson v. Grissom,
`821 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................. 20
`
`Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.,
`2005 WL 1213926 (E.D. Pa. May 19, 2005) ....................................................................... 13
`
`In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig.,
`2013 WL 1365900 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2013) ....................................................................... 18
`
`In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Mktg., Sales Pracs., &
`Prod. Liab. Litig.,
`2013 WL 12327929 (C.D. Cal. July 24, 2013) ............................................................. 11, 12
`
`Vincent v. Hughes Air W.,
`557 F.2d 759 (9th Cir. 1977) ............................................................................................... 23
`
`Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp.,
`290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) ...................................................................................... passim
`
`Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc.,
`396 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2005) ................................................................................ 10, 11, 15, 22
`
`In re Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig.,
`19 F.3d 1291 (9th Cir. 1994) ............................................................................................... 18
`
`STATUTES
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1 ........................................................................................................................... 2, 7
`
`FEDERAL RULES
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h) ...................................................................................... 10
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52 ....................................................................................... 3, 16
`
`DEVELOPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES – vi
`Case No. 4:19-cv-03074-YGR
`010818-11/1791141 V1
`
`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 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 465 Filed 02/14/22 Page 8 of 36
`
`
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) ...................................................................................... 10
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`California, Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements,
`http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ClassActionSettlementGuidance .......................................... 25
`
`F. Patrick Hubbard, Substantive Due Process Limits on Punitive Damages
`Awards: “Morals Without Technique”?, 60 Fla. L. Rev. 349 (2008) ................................. 19
`
`Herbert M. Kritzer, The Wages of Risk: The Returns of Contingency Fee Legal
`Practice, 47 DePaul L. Rev. 267 (1998) ............................................................................. 19
`
`Theodore Eisenberg et al., Attorneys’ Fees in Class Actions: 2009-2013 ................................ 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEVELOPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES – vii
`Case No. 4:19-cv-03074-YGR
`010818-11/1791141 V1
`
`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 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 465 Filed 02/14/22 Page 9 of 36
`
`GLOSSARY OF TERMS
`
`
`Description
`Declaration of Steve W. Berman in Support of Developer
`Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Reimbursement of
`Expenses, and Service Awards, concurrently filed herewith.
`Declaration of Donald R. Cameron in Support of Developer
`Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses and Service
`Awards, concurrently filed herewith.
`Declaration of Katrina C. Carroll in Support of Developer
`Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Reimbursement of
`Expenses, and Service Awards on Behalf of Lynch Carpenter
`LLP, concurrently filed herewith.
`Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Sperling & Slater, P.C.,
`Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC,
`Lynch Carpenter LLP.
`In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation, No. 4:11-cv-6714-
`YGR (N.D. Cal.).
`Declaration of Richard Czeslawski in Support of Developer
`Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses and Service
`Awards, concurrently filed herewith.
`Unless otherwise noted, all “ECF No.” citations refer to this
`case: Cameron et al. v. Apple Inc., No. 4:19-cv-0374-YGR
`(N.D. Cal.).
`Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 4:20-cv-5640-YGR (N.D.
`Cal.).
`Declaration of Jonathan M. Jagher in Support of Developer
`Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Reimbursement of
`Expenses, and Service Awards on Behalf of Freed Kanner
`London & Millen LLC, concurrently filed herewith.
`Declaration of Eamon P. Kelly in Support of Developer
`Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Reimbursement of
`Expenses, and Service Awards on Behalf of Sperling & Slater,
`P.C., concurrently filed herewith.
`Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.
`Declaration of R. Alexander Saveri in Support of Developer
`Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Reimbursement of
`Expenses, and Service Awards on Behalf of Saveri & Saveri,
`Inc., concurrently filed herewith.
`
`
`Term
`Berman Decl.
`
`Cameron Decl.
`
`Carroll Decl.
`
`Class Counsel
`
`Consumer Action
`
`Czeslawski Decl.
`
`ECF No.
`
`Epic Action
`
`Jagher Decl.
`
`Kelly Decl.
`
`Lead Class Counsel
`Saveri Decl.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`DEVELOPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES – viii
`Case No. 4:19-cv-03074-YGR
`010818-11/1791141 V1
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 465 Filed 02/14/22 Page 10 of 36
`
`
`
`I.
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`After more than two years of hard-fought litigation, Class Counsel for the Developer
`Plaintiffs reached a settlement with Apple that secures a $100 million non-reversionary cash fund
`for the Settlement Class and valuable structural relief that commits Apple to a range of reforms that
`will enable developers to better create, distribute, and monetize their apps. As part of the structural
`relief, Apple agreed to relax its anti-steering rules, acknowledged that this litigation was a driver
`behind its Small Business Program (SBP), and agreed to maintain the SBP’s 15 percent
`commission rate for at least another three years, among other reforms. Although not all of the
`structural relief in the settlement can be valued with precision, the SBP elements can be valued
`and, most conservatively, they deliver at least an additional $35.44 million to the Settlement Class.
`In light of the substantial risks and challenges faced down to obtain these strong results, Plaintiffs
`respectfully request: (1) an award of $27,000,000 in attorneys’ fees—equivalent to 19.9 percent of
`the $135.44 million in quantifiable relief for the Class and 27 percent of the non-reversionary cash
`fund; (2) reimbursement of $3,500,000 to cover most (but not all) of the out-of-pocket litigation
`expenses incurred in this case; and (3) service awards of $5,000 for the two class representatives.
`Class Counsel’s $27 million fee request is reasonable. An award of 19.9 percent of the
`$135.44 million in quantifiable relief (which includes the $35.44 million in SBP savings counted as
`part of the common fund under Ninth Circuit law) is below this Circuit’s benchmark of 25 percent.
`But even if one were to disregard the SBP savings, the results obtained for the Settlement Class
`justify a modest increase from the benchmark to 27 percent. The $100 million non-reversionary
`cash fund alone constitutes between 30.4 and 34.6 percent of the maximum potential single
`damages for the Settlement Class. That is a superb recovery, exceeding recoveries deemed
`sufficient to justify awards of 30 or 33 percent of the common fund in other antitrust class actions.
`Moreover, the Settlement’s structural relief elements (individually, and collectively) confer
`additional economic and practical benefits on the Settlement Class.
`Counsel achieved these results despite facing significant risks and challenges. Developer
`Plaintiffs presented novel monopolization claims challenging the fundamental business model of
`one of the most well-resourced companies in the world, all on a contingency basis. This Court
`DEVELOPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES – 1
`Case No. 4:19-cv-03074-YGR
`010818-11/1791141 V1
`
`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 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 465 Filed 02/14/22 Page 11 of 36
`
`
`
`explained in the preliminary approval order that “it is particularly aware of the risks of trial in this
`case having tried and written a 185-page decision in the Epic Games v. Apple dispute.”1 Class
`Counsel confronted these challenges with dogged and efficient work, culminating in a
`comprehensive class certification motion supported by three detailed expert reports. Recognizing
`the strength of their motion, but also the risks of a negative outcome in the Epic v. Apple trial,
`Class Counsel settled strategically just weeks before this Court’s post-trial rulings. This strategy
`worked to the Class’s benefit because the Court’s rulings, adverse to Epic on many key issues,
`would have substantially diminished Plaintiffs’ settlement leverage in any future negotiations.
`The reasonableness of the requested award is further confirmed by a “lodestar cross-check.”
`The requested award would lead to a modest multiplier of 2.47, which is well within the range of
`multipliers approved in this district and affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. It is reasonable here given
`the excellent results obtained for the Settlement Class in the face of serious risks and challenges.
`Beyond fees, the requested expenses—the majority of which were for the experts whose
`reports provided the foundation for Plaintiffs’ class certification motion—were all necessary to the
`representation of the Class. Additionally, the requested $5,000 service award to the two class
`representative is also reasonable given the significant commitment to the Class and investment of
`time provided to this case. Plaintiffs respectfully request that their motion be granted.
`II.
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`Developer Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint on June 4, 2019, and their Consolidated
`Amended Complaint on September 30, 2019. See ECF No. 53. Asserting claims under the Sherman
`Act and California’s Unfair Competition Law, Developer Plaintiffs contended that Apple
`monopolizes a relevant market for iOS app and in-app-product distribution services, charging iOS
`app developers supracompetitive commissions.
`Apple filed its answer on November 11, 2019. ECF No. 74. The Court subsequently
`coordinated this action with In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation, No. 4:11-cv-6714 and Epic
`Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 4:20-cv-5640, for discovery purposes.
`
`1 ECF No. 453 at 4.
`
`
`
`DEVELOPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES – 2
`Case No. 4:19-cv-03074-YGR
`010818-11/1791141 V1
`
`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 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 465 Filed 02/14/22 Page 12 of 36
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Following class and merits-based discovery, Developer Plaintiffs moved for class
`certification on June 1, 2021, one week after closing arguments in the Epic trial. See ECF No. 331.
`On August 11, 2021, Apple filed its opposition to class certification. See ECF No. 376.
`After extensive negotiations culminated in a final settlement agreement with Apple,
`Developer Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of the settlement on August 26, 2021. ECF
`No. 396. Approximately two weeks later, on September 10, this Court issued its Rule 52 Order
`regarding the Epic v. Apple trial. See Epic Action, ECF No. 812. On November 16, 2021, this
`Court granted Developer Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and set
`deadlines for notice, objections, exclusions, and the final fairness hearing. ECF No. 453.
`III. THE WORK UNDERTAKEN BY THE DEVELOPER PLAINTIFFS
`Class Counsel completed a substantial pre-litigation investigation that led to a
`comprehensive, well-pleaded complaint.
`The initial complaint brought by Lead Class Counsel Hagens Berman followed a detailed,
`independent investigation into the facts and law underlying Plaintiffs’ claims and the conduct at
`issue. Berman Decl. ¶ 14. That investigation resulted in the comprehensive complaint filed on June
`4, 2019. ECF No. 1. When Apple raised its intention to move to dismiss, this Court described the
`complaint as setting forth an “articulated theory” of antitrust liability, see Oct. 7, 2019 Hrg. Tr. at
`15:7, and indicated that the complaint would likely endure a 12(b)(6) motion. See Oct. 7, 2019 Hrg.
`Tr. at 19:9-22 (“You know, a motion to dismiss, I don’t -- that’s not how this case is going to get
`resolved.”). Ultimately, Apple decided to answer the complaint, rather than file a motion to
`dismiss. ECF No. 74. More than a year later, Epic brought individual claims against Apple under
`similar theories. See Epic Action, ECF No. 1 (Aug. 13, 2020).
`B.
`Class Counsel engaged in substantial discovery efforts on behalf of the Settlement
`Class.
`1.
`
`Class Counsel coordinated with counsel for Consumer Plaintiffs and Epic to
`obtain critical discovery.
`From the beginning of the case, Class Counsel sought to maximize efficiency and avoid
`duplication by coordinating discovery efforts with the Consumer Plaintiffs. For example,
`Developer and Consumer Plaintiffs jointly drafted proposed orders and protocols for coordinated
`
`DEVELOPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES – 3
`Case No. 4:19-cv-03074-YGR
`010818-11/1791141 V1
`
`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 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 465 Filed 02/14/22 Page 13 of 36
`
`
`
`discovery, protection of confidential materials, expert discovery, and a discovery schedule. After
`the Epic case was related and the Court ordered discovery coordinated, Class Counsel continued to
`work collaboratively, now with two plaintiff groups, to aggressively pursue discovery. Berman
`Decl. ¶ 15. Apple often resisted these efforts, and Plaintiffs brought a series of discovery motions
`that were instrumental in developing a strong record in support of Plaintiffs’ claims. Id.
`2.
`Class Counsel completed substantial written and document discovery.
`Developer Plaintiffs propounded detailed written discovery, including 89 document
`requests and thirteen interrogatories. Class Counsel also issued subpoenas to third parties for data
`and documents, including subpoenas to Google, Amazon, App Annie, and Epic. Id. ¶ 16.
`Class Counsel spent thousands of hours analyzing Apple’s written discovery responses and
`the documents produced by Apple and third parties. In total, Plaintiffs obtained documents from at
`least 19 Apple custodians and several third parties. Five million documents constituting 20 million
`pages were ultimately produced in this litigation. Apple also produced a 13-terabyte transactional
`dataset that Developer Plaintiffs and their experts have extensively analyzed. Id. ¶ 17.
`To obtain this discovery, Developer Plaintiffs brought and prevailed, at least in part, on
`seven contested motions to compel, with some of the results summarized below.
`
`Discovery letter brief
`Joint Statement Regarding Apple’s Production of
`Documents Responsive to Consumer Plaintiffs’ 2nd Set
`of Requests for Production of Documents, ECF No. 145
`Joint Letter Brief Regarding Apple’s Production of Cost
`and Expense Documents and Data, ECF No. 146
`Joint Statement Regarding Apple’s Production of
`Transactional Data, ECF No. 147
`Joint Discovery Letter Brief Regarding Additional Apple
`Custodians, ECF No. 177
`Joint Discovery Letter Brief Re: Number of Apple
`Depositions, ECF No. 199
`Joint Discovery Letter Brief Regarding Cue and Federighi
`Depositions, ECF No. 241
`Joint Discovery Letter Brief Regarding Cook Deposition,
`ECF No. 242
`
`Outcome
`Date filed
`Nov. 13, 2020 Granted in part,
`ECF No. 192
`
`Nov. 13, 2020 Granted in part,
`ECF No. 192
`Nov. 13, 2020 Granted, ECF
`No. 192
`Dec. 7, 2020 Granted, ECF
`No. 192
`Dec. 17, 2020 Granted, ECF
`No. 200
`Jan. 20, 2021 Granted, ECF
`No. 268
`Jan. 20, 2021 Granted, ECF
`No. 268
`
`DEVELOPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES – 4
`Case No. 4:19-cv-03074-YGR
`010818-11/1791141 V1
`
`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 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 465 Filed 02/14/22 Page 14 of 36
`
`
`
`These motions necessitated large amounts of time for meet-and-confers, briefing, and
`hearing preparation. Often, Plaintiffs coordinated briefing and argument with the Consumer
`Plaintiffs and/or Epic. Berman Decl. ¶ 19. In part due to the accelerated Epic discovery schedule,
`disputes had to brought to the court over a very short period of time, requiring intensive work by
`Class Counsel. The seven joint discovery letter briefs identified in the chart, for example, were
`filed in a two-month period that included the winter holidays. Moreover, as explained in Section
`III.B.3 infra, as these disputes were being briefed and argued, Counsel was also taking depositions
`of high-ranking Apple executives, intensifying the workload for Plaintiffs’ core team of lawyers
`and staff.
`For these and other reasons, Plaintiffs prioritized their discovery disputes based on issues
`critical to the case. For instance, following protracted negotiations with Apple over several months,
`on November 13, 2020, Plaintiffs filed two joint letter briefs in pursuit of materials germane to
`class certification and the merits: (1) ECF No. 146: Joint Letter Brief Regarding Apple’s
`Production of Cost and Expense Documents and Data, and (2) ECF No. 147: Joint Statement
`Regarding Apple’s Production of Transactional Data. The former joint letter brief involved a
`dispute over the data fields that Apple would produce in its transactional database, and the latter
`cost and expense information for the App Store that Apple claimed not to maintain.2 The court
`largely granted Plaintiffs’ motions,3 and the data and information Apple was compelled to produce
`proved essential to Developer Plaintiffs’ expert reports supporting class certification and, in
`particular, their showing of classwide impact and damages. Berman Decl. ¶ 20.
`Other motion practice by Plaintiffs led to favorable discovery orders, including orders
`compelling Apple to produce documents from additional custodians (ECF No. 192); compelling
`Apple to produce additional deponents (ECF No. 200); and an order, after hotly contested briefing,
`compelling the full-length depositions of high-ranking Apple executives, including CEO Tim
`Cook, Senior Vice President of Services Eddy Cue, and Senior Vice President of Engineering
`
`2 See ECF No. 192 at 7.
`3 See id. at 6-7.
`
`
`
`DEVELOPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES – 5
`Case No. 4:19-cv-