`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`ALLAN STEYER (Bar No. 100318)
`JILL M. MANNING (Bar No. 178849)
`D. SCOTT MACRAE (Bar No. 104663)
`SUNEEL JAIN (Bar No. 314558)
`STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS
` ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP
`235 Pine Street, 15th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: (415) 424-3400
`Facsimile: (415) 421-2234
`asteyer@steyerlaw.com
`jmanning@steyerlaw.com
`smacrae@steyerlaw.com
`sjain@steyerlaw.com
`
`CLIFFORD H. PEARSON (Bar. No. 108523)
`DANIEL L. WARSHAW (Bar No. 185365)
`THOMAS J. NOLAN (Bar No. 66992)
`PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
`15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
`Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
`Telephone: (818) 788-8300
`Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
`cpearson@pswlaw.com
`dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
`tnolan@pswlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`CHRISTINA GRACE and KEN POTTER
` CASE NO. 5:17-cv-00551-LHK-NC
`Individually and on Behalf of All Others
`
`CLASS ACTION
`Similarly Situated,
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`Plaintiffs,
`FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES,
`
`REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES, AND
`vs.
`SERVICE AWARDS
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Date: February 8, 2021
`Time: 1:30 p.m.
`Courtroom: 8, 4th Floor
`Judge: The Honorable Lucy H. Koh
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`945562.1
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES,
`REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND SERVICE AWARDS
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 429 Filed 11/24/20 Page 2 of 30
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 8, 2021, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as
`the matter may be heard in the Courtroom of the Honorable Lucy H. Koh, United States District
`Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, CA
`95113, Plaintiffs Christina Grace and Ken Potter (“Plaintiffs”) will and hereby do move the Court,
`pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h)(1) and 54(d)(2), for the entry of an Order
`awarding the following in this action (the “Action”):
`1.
`Attorneys’ fees to class counsel in this Action (“Class Counsel”) in the amount of
`$5,400,000, which is 30% of the total settlement fund of $18 million;
`2.
`Unreimbursed expenses Class Counsel necessarily incurred in connection with the
`prosecution of this Action in the amount of $1,092,459.47; and
`3.
`Service awards of $7,500 for each of the two Class Representatives, for a total of
`$15,000.
`This motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and accompanying Memorandum of
`Points and Authorities; the Declaration of Jill M. Manning filed herewith; the Declaration of
`Daniel L. Warshaw filed herewith; the Declaration of David F.E. Tejtel filed herewith; the
`Declaration of John Austin Curry filed herewith; all exhibits thereto; argument by counsel at the
`hearing before this Court; any papers filed in reply; the pleading and papers on file in this Action,
`and such oral argument and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing on this
`motion.
`Date: November 24, 2020
`
`
`STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS
`ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`945562.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
` /s/ Jill M. Manning
`
`Jill M. Manning
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES,
`REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND SERVICE AWARDS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 429 Filed 11/24/20 Page 3 of 30
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`945562.1
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1
`BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................2
`A.
`The Action and the Claims Asserted Therein ............................................................2
`B.
`Class Counsel Prosecuted this Action Tenaciously and with Great Skill and
`Effectiveness ..............................................................................................................3
`Mediation and Settlement ...........................................................................................6
`C.
`ARGUMENT .........................................................................................................................6
`A.
`The Requested Fee Is Reasonable and Appropriate ...................................................7
`1.
`The Court Should Calculate Class Counsel’s Fees as a Percentage of
`the Common Fund ..........................................................................................8
`The Court Should Award A Fee of Thirty Percent of the Common
`Fund ................................................................................................................9
`(a)
`Class Counsel Achieved a Significant Benefit for the Class ...........11
`(b)
`Class Counsel Faced Significant Risk in Litigating the
`Action ...............................................................................................11
`Substantial Effort and Skill Was Required to Prosecute this
`Action ...............................................................................................13
`Class Counsel Litigated this Action on a Purely Contingent
`Basis .................................................................................................16
`Awards in Similar Cases Support an Upward Adjustment ..............16
`(e)
`A Lodestar-Multiplier “Cross-Check” Further Confirms the
`Reasonableness of the Requested Fee ..........................................................17
`Class Counsel’s Expenses Are Reasonable and Should Be Reimbursed .................20
`B.
`The Service Award Request Is Reasonable ..............................................................20
`C.
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................22
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`i
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES,
`REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND SERVICE AWARDS
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 429 Filed 11/24/20 Page 4 of 30
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Acosta v. Frito-Lay, Inc.,
`No. 15-CV- 02128-JSC, 2018 WL 646691 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2018) ................................... 20
`
`Allapattah Servs., Inc. v. Exxon Corp.,
`454 F. Supp. 2d 1185 (S.D. Fla. 2006) .................................................................................... 17
`
`Alvarez v. Farmers Ins. Exch.,
`No. 3:14-CV-00574-WHO, 2017 WL 2214585 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2017) ............................ 22
`
`In re Animation Workers Antitrust Litig.,
`No. 14-CV-4062-LHK, 2016 WL 6663005 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 11, 2016) ................................. 18
`
`In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig.,
`No. 15-MD-02617-LHK, 2018 WL 3960068 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2018) ....................... passim
`
`Bellinghausen v. Tractor Supply Co.,
`306 F.R.D. 245 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ............................................................................................ 22
`
`In re Bluetooth Headset Products Liab. Litig.,
`654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................... 7, 11
`
`Blum v. Stenson,
`465 U.S. 886 (1984) ............................................................................................................ 9, 18
`
`Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert,
`444 U.S. 472 (1980) .................................................................................................................. 7
`
`Castaneda v. Burger King Corp.,
`No. C 08-04262 WHA, 2010 WL 2735091 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2010) ................................... 10
`
`In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig.,
`No. 3:07-cv-5944 JST, 2016 WL 721680 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2016) ...................................... 10
`
`de Mira v. Heartland Employment Serv.,
`LLC, No. 12-CV-04092 LHK, 2014 WL 1026282 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2014) ...................... 15
`
`Garner v. State Farm,
`No. CV 08 1365 CW, 2010 WL 1687829 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2010) ..................................... 10
`
`Glass v. UBS Fin. Servs., Inc.,
`No. C-06-4068 MMC, 2007 WL 221862 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2007), aff’d, 331 F.
`App’x 452 (9th Cir. 2009) ....................................................................................................... 13
`
`945562.1
`
`ii
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES,
`REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND SERVICE AWARDS
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 429 Filed 11/24/20 Page 5 of 30
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`In re Google LLC St. View Elec. Commc'ns Litig.,
`No. 10-MD-02184-CRB, 2020 WL 1288377 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2020) ................................. 8
`
`Hendricks v. Starkist Co.,
`No. 13- 00729-HSG, 2016 WL 5462423 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2016), aff’d, 2018
`WL 5115482 (9th Cir. Oct. 19, 2018) ....................................................................................... 6
`
`Hickcox-Huffman v. US Airways, Inc.,
`No. 10-CV-05193-VKD, 2019 WL 1571877 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2019) ............................... 22
`
`In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litig.,
`2015 WL 5158730 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2015) ........................................................ 17, 18, 20, 22
`
`Hopkins v. Stryker Sales Corp.,
`No. 11-CV-02786-LHK, 2013 WL 496358 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2013) .............................. 10, 15
`
`Johnson v. Quantum Learning Network, Inc.,
`No. 15-CV-05013-LHK, 2017 WL 747462 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2017) ........................ 8, 10, 15
`
`Knight v. Red Door Salons, Inc.,
`No. 08–01520 SC, 2009 WL 248367 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2009) ........................................ 10, 12
`
`Kurzweil v. Philip Morris Cos.,
`No. 94 CIV. 2373 (MBM), 1999 WL 1076105 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 1999) ............................ 17
`
`In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig.,
`No. CIV.A. 98-5055, 2004 WL 1221350 (E.D. Pa. Jun. 2, 2004) .......................................... 17
`
`In re Media Vision Tech. Sec. Litig.,
`913 F. Supp. 1362 (N.D. Cal. 1995) ....................................................................................... 20
`
`In re National Collegiate Athletic Association Athletic Grant-in-Aid Cap Antitrust
`Litigation,
`Case No. 4:14-md-2541-CW (N.D. Cal.), Dkt No. 1246 (Oct. 16, 2019) .............................. 18
`
`In re National Collegiate Athletic Association Athletic Grant-in-Aid Cap Antitrust
`Litigation,
`Case No. 4:14-md-2541-CW (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. No. 1259 (Dec. 6, 2019) .............................. 18
`
`In re Nexus 6P Prod. Liab. Litig.,
`No. 17-CV-02185-BLF, 2019 WL 6622842 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2019) ............................ 8, 10
`
`In re Omnivision Techs., Inc.,
`559 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ...................................................................... 10, 13, 14
`
`In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig.,
`779 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2015) ................................................................................................... 21
`
`Paul, Johnson, Alston & Hunt v. Graulty,
`886 F.2d 268 (9th Cir. 1989) ................................................................................................... 15
`945562.1
`iii
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES,
`REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND SERVICE AWARDS
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 429 Filed 11/24/20 Page 6 of 30
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`In re Relafen Antitrust Litig.,
`231 F.R.D. 52 (D. Mass. 2005) ............................................................................................... 17
`
`Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp.,
`563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`Schneider v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.,
`No. 16-CV-02200-HSG, 2020 WL 6484833 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2020) ............................. 8, 10
`
`Six Mexican Workers v. Ariz. Citrus Growers,
`904 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1990) ............................................................................................... 7, 9
`
`Staton v. Boeing Co.,
`327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................... 7, 21
`
`Sullivan v. DB Invs., Inc.,
`667 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................... 20
`
`In re Sumitomo Copper Litig.,
`74 F. Supp. 2d 393 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) ....................................................................................... 17
`
`In re Target Corp. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`No. 14–2522 (PAM), 2017 WL 2178306 (D. Minn. May 17, 2017) ...................................... 17
`
`In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig.,
`No. M 07-1827 SI, 2013 WL 149692 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2013) ............................................ 10
`
`In re The Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`No.: 1:14-md-02583-TWT, 2016 WL 6902351 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 23, 2016) ............................ 17
`
`Vedachalam v. Tata Consultancy Servs., Ltd.,
`No. C 06–0963 CW, 2013 WL 3941319 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2013) ....................................... 10
`
`Vincent v. Hughes Air W., Inc.,
`557 F.2d 759 (9th Cir. 1977) ................................................................................................... 20
`
`In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig.,
`No. MDL 1285, 2001 WL 34312839 (D.D.C. July 16, 2001) ................................................ 17
`
`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) ........................................................................................................ 9
`
`In re Wash. Pub. Power Supply System Sec. Litig.,
`19 F.3d 1291 (9th Cir. 1994) ......................................................................................... 7, 16, 17
`
`Wininger v. SI Mgmt. L.P.,
`301 F.3d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir. 2002) ....................................................................................... 20
`945562.1
`iv
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES,
`REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND SERVICE AWARDS
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 429 Filed 11/24/20 Page 7 of 30
`
`
`
`In re Yahoo Mail Litig.,
`No. 13-CV-4980-LHK, 2016 WL 4474612 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2016) ................................. 19
`
`In re Yahoo! Inc. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`No. 16-MD-02752-LHK, 2020 WL 4212811 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2020) ......................... 18, 21
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h) ........................................................................................................................ 6
`
`Other Authorities
`
`5 Newberg on Class Actions §§ 15:62, 15:65 (5th ed. 2018) ......................................................... 9
`
`
`
`945562.1
`
`v
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES,
`REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND SERVICE AWARDS
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 429 Filed 11/24/20 Page 8 of 30
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`I.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`With trial imminent after over three years of zealous and effective prosecution of this
`action (the “Action”) against one of the most sophisticated and well-resourced corporations in the
`world, Class Counsel1 achieved a significant result on behalf of the California class (the “Class”).
`The $18 million settlement secured by Class Counsel following a proposal from a United States
`District Court Magistrate Judge provides significant monetary relief to the Class in exchange for
`release of their claims against Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) relating to events that transpired in
`2014.
`
`To achieve this result, Class Counsel developed and asserted a legal theory described by
`the Court as “novel,” then devoted substantial efforts and demonstrated significant skill in the
`prosecution of this Action, including by: (i) amending the complaint in response to Apple’s initial
`motion to dismiss; (ii) prevailing in full against Apple’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint;
`(iii) litigating twelve motions to compel; (iv) obtaining Apple’s production of 1,025,596 pages of
`documents, including databases each of which contained millions of records; (v) securing access
`to and analyzing Apple’s highly-sensitive and technical programming source code; (vi) taking
`seven depositions of Apple representatives, including two Rule 30(b)(6) depositions; (vii) taking
`four depositions of non-parties; (viii) taking or defending against seven depositions of the parties’
`five experts; (ix) securing the certification of the California Class; (x) defeating Apple’s motion
`for summary judgment; and (xi) preparing for trial, including through the filing of or defense
`against six motions in limine and myriad other pre-trial tasks. Further, the significant benefit
`achieved by Class Counsel was reached only after four Court-ordered, in-person mediation
`sessions, first with a retired California state court judge and then with a current federal Magistrate
`Judge, resulting in a final proposal crafted by the latter.
`
`
`1 As used herein, “Class Counsel” means Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP (“PSW”); Steyer
`Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP (“Steyer Lowenthal”); Caldwell Cassady & Curry
`(“CCC”); and Friedman Oster & Tejtel PLLC (“FOT”). Dkt. Nos. 269, 426.
`
`945562.1
`
`1
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES,
`REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND SERVICE AWARDS
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 429 Filed 11/24/20 Page 9 of 30
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`In compensation for their efforts, Class Counsel seek a fee award equal to 30% of the $18
`million cash fund they achieved, amounting to $5,400,000. The reasonableness and propriety of
`this upward adjustment from the Ninth Circuit’s 25% “benchmark” is confirmed by the fact that a
`lodestar cross-check results in a .67 negative multiplier given the extensive efforts invested by
`Class Counsel into this Action. Class Counsel also seeks a $1,092,459.47 reimbursement of
`litigation costs reasonably expended in the prosecution of this Action, as well as service awards of
`$7,500 (the “Service Awards”) for each of Plaintiffs Christina Grace and Ken Potter (together, the
`“Class Representatives”) in recognition of their efforts and sacrifices in connection with this
`Action.
`BACKGROUND
`II.
`The Action and the Claims Asserted Therein
`A.
`Plaintiff Grace filed this Action on February 2, 2017 (Dkt. No. 1), and filed an amended
`complaint (the “Amended Complaint”) adding Plaintiff Potter on April 5, 2017. Dkt. No. 36. The
`Amended Complaint asserts “a consumer class action brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of
`themselves and all others similarly situated who owned an Apple iPhone 4 or iPhone 4S that was
`operating on iOS 6 or an earlier operating system, and therefore lost the ability to use Apple’s
`‘FaceTime’ video conferencing feature when Apple intentionally broke FaceTime for iOS 6 and
`earlier operating systems on April 16, 2014.” Dkt. No. 36. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that
`despite recognizing for months that a certificate necessary to the functioning of Apple’s popular
`FaceTime feature would expire on April 16, 2014 (the “iPhone Device Sub-CA”), Apple
`knowingly allowed the certificate to expire—and thus, FaceTime to break (the “FaceTime
`Break”)—with respect to certain devices (e.g., Apple iPhone 4 and 4S devices) running on certain
`versions of Apple’s operating software (i.e., iOS 6 and earlier) in order to reduce the company’s
`costs. Id.
`The atypical nature of the misconduct and harm alleged—i.e., Apple’s failure to prevent a
`digital certificate expiration programmed years earlier, which required affected users to upgrade to
`a new but problematic version of iOS in order to regain functionality and thus devalued their
`devices—presented considerable difficulty in ascertaining an appropriate cause of action.
`945562.1
`2
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES,
`REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND SERVICE AWARDS
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 429 Filed 11/24/20 Page 10 of 30
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`Ultimately, after significant research and analysis, the Class Representatives and Class Counsel
`settled upon a trespass to chattels claim under California law, see Dkt. No. 36, which the Court
`subsequently described as “novel.” Dkt. No. 57, 12:16-18. Plaintiffs also asserted violations of
`California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq. (the “UCL”). Dkt.
`No. 36. Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint sought damages, restitution, and injunctive relief. Id. The
`damages and restitution sought by Plaintiffs represented the diminution in value of the Class’s
`iPhone 4 and 4S devices caused by the FaceTime Break by virtue of those devices either: (i) losing
`the ability to use FaceTime, or (ii) suffering functionality impairment as a result of upgrading to
`iOS 7 in order to regain the use of FaceTime.
`Although the April 16, 2014 FaceTime Break was widely felt, recognized and reported
`when it occurred, no claims relating thereto were ever asserted in the roughly 33 months that
`elapsed between the FaceTime Break and the filing of this Action. Because California law
`imposes a three-year statute of limitations for the Trespass to Chattels claim and a four-year
`statute of limitations for the UCL claim, had the Class Representatives and Class Counsel not
`pursued these claims and secured the benefit achieved thereby, it is highly unlikely that any other
`plaintiff or plaintiff’s counsel would have done so, such that the conduct alleged in this Action
`would never have been challenged or remedied.
`Class Counsel Prosecuted this Action Tenaciously and with Great Skill
`B.
`and Effectiveness
`From the outset of this Action and for the ensuing more than three-year prosecution
`thereof, Class Counsel litigated against Apple tenaciously and with great skill and effectiveness.
`After months spent researching and investigating potentially actionable legal claims based on the
`challenged misconduct and synthesizing those claims into a meritorious complaint, this Action
`was filed on February 2, 2017. Dkt. No. 1. After Apple moved to dismiss the Action, Class
`Counsel invested additional time and resources into drafting the Amended Complaint. Dkt. No.
`36. In denying in full Apple’s motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on July 28, 2017, the
`Court accepted in substantial part Class Counsel’s arguments for rejection of Apple’s myriad
`proffered bases for dismissal. Dkt. No. 65.
`945562.1
`
`3
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES,
`REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND SERVICE AWARDS
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 429 Filed 11/24/20 Page 11 of 30
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`The parties then entered the highly contentious discovery phase of the Action, which
`required a substantial expenditure of Class Counsel’s time, effort and resources. The extensive
`discovery process in this Action included: (i) twelve discovery motions, including six motions to
`compel filed by Plaintiffs; (ii) 78 requests for production of documents; (iii) 68 interrogatories;
`(iv) 42 requests for admission; (v) Apple’s production of 224,693 documents totaling over a
`million pages; (vi) Plaintiffs’ review of databases produced in discovery that contained millions of
`records; (vii) review and analysis of Apple’s source code; (viii) seventeen fact and expert
`depositions, including eleven taken by Plaintiffs; (ix) forensic imaging of the Class
`Representatives’ three iPhone devices; (x) full-day depositions of both Class Representatives; (xi)
`numerous non-party document requests and deposition subpoenas, and (xii) countless meet-and-
`confers between the parties. Declaration of Jill M. Manning in Support of Motion for Attorney’s
`Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses and Service Awards (“Manning Decl.”), ¶¶ 6-11.
`After receiving and analyzing Defendant and third-party discovery, Plaintiffs retained Dr.
`Justine S. Hastings, Ph.D., to calculate aggregate class-wide damages measured by the diminution
`in value of Class Members’ iPhone 4 and 4S devices caused by the FaceTime Break. Working
`with Class Counsel, Dr. Hastings constructed an econometric damages model using transactional
`data that Class Counsel secured from third-party resellers of smart phone devices through
`discovery in this Action. Manning Decl., ¶ 12. Dr. Hastings used multivariate regression analysis
`to compare smart phone prices during the time period affected by the FaceTime Break to prices
`during the time when the market was unaffected. Dkt. No. 174. The model produced an estimate
`of the impact of the FaceTime Break on prices of used iPhone 4 and 4S models and concluded that
`Apple’s conduct impacted the prices by, on average, $18.30 per device. Class Counsel defended
`against Apple’s vigorous attacks against Dr. Hastings’s model and methodology, which the Court
`accepted in its orders on class certification and summary judgment. Dkt. Nos. 269, 306.
`Plaintiffs also retained and worked with Dr. Mark T. Jones, who analyzed and rendered an
`opinion and testimony regarding various highly specialized and technical aspects of Plaintiffs’
`claims, including (i) the fundamental purpose and functioning of digital certificates generally and,
`more specifically, the specific certificate architecture surrounding FaceTime, including the iPhone
`945562.1
`4
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES,
`REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND SERVICE AWARDS
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 429 Filed 11/24/20 Page 12 of 30
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`Device Sub-CA; (ii) the options available to Apple in connection with the iPhone Device Sub-CA
`expiration that caused the FaceTime Break; and (iii) actions that Apple could have taken -- but did
`not take -- that might have mitigated the impact of the iPhone Device Sub-CA expiration.
`Manning Decl., ¶ 13.
`At the class certification phase, Class Counsel secured certification of a class pursuant to
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) defined as “[a]ll owners of non-jailbroken Apple iPhone 4 or Apple
`iPhone 4S devices in California who on April 16, 2014, had iOS 6 or earlier operating systems on
`their iPhone 4 or iPhone 4S devices.” Dkt. No. 269. Because the Court denied certification of a
`nationwide class and did not certify an injunctive relief class under the UCL, Plaintiffs filed a
`petition pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) seeking permission to appeal the Court’s denial of
`certification of a nationwide class. Dkt. No. 290. Ultimately, the Ninth Circuit denied Plaintiffs
`permission to appeal. Dkt. No. 295.
`On October 4, 2018, Apple filed a motion seeking summary judgment in its favor on both
`of Plaintiffs’ claims. Dkt. No. 278. Plaintiffs filed their opposition brief on October 18, 2018
`(Dkt. No. 285), and on August 21, 2019, the Court denied Apple’s summary judgment motion for
`substantially the same reasons set forth in Plaintiffs’ opposition brief. Dkt. No. 306.
`Class Counsel then began preparing for trial, which was scheduled to commence on April
`6, 2020. Dkt. No. 374. On December 12, 2019, Apple filed a Daubert motion seeking to exclude
`from the Action the testimony and reports of Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Hastings. Dkt. No. 333. On
`December 13, 2019, Plaintiffs and Apple each filed three motions in limine (Dkt. Nos. 334-39),
`and on December 17, 2019, the parties filed their respective oppositions thereto. Dkt. Nos. 342-
`47. Class Counsel thereafter engaged in various pre-trial activities, including creating trial exhibit
`and witness lists, and drafting, negotiating and filing proposed verdict forms, voir dire and jury
`instructions. Dkt. Nos. 348-50. On January 15, 2019, the Court held a pretrial conference at
`which, among other things, the parties argued Apple’s Daubert motion. Dkt. No. 370. Class
`Counsel then continued preparing the Action for trial, including through the filing of its witness
`list and further revised jury instructions and verdict forms. Dkt. Nos. 387-91.
`
`
`945562.1
`
`5
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES,
`REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND SERVICE AWARDS
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 429 Filed 11/24/20 Page 13 of 30
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`C. Mediation and Settlement
`Pursuant to the Court’s order, on November 9, 2018, the parties attended an all-day
`mediation session before the Honorable William J. Cahill (Ret.), at JAMS in San Francisco.
`Manning Decl., ¶ 18. The mediation did not result in a settlement. Id.
`After denying Apple’s motion for summary judgment, the Court ordered the parties to
`return to mediation. On October 22, 2019, the parties engaged in a second mediation before Judge
`Cahill, and again could not reach agreement on a settlement. Id.
`As the Action progressed closer to trial, the Court ordered the parties to attend a settlement
`conference before the Honorable Nathanael M. Cousins. Dkt. No. 325. On December 5, 2019,
`Magistrate Judge Cousins held an all-day settlement conference, but the parties were unable to
`resolve the case. Manning Decl., ¶ 19. After extensive follow-up discussions, the parties attended
`a second in-person settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Cousins on January 16, 2020,
`which also failed to result in a settlement. Id. Magistrate Judge Cousins continued conferring
`with the parties and, on January 31, 2020, made a proposal to settle the Action for $18 million,
`which was accepted by the parties. Id.
`In the months that followed, Class Counsel engaged in extensive and highly contentious
`negotiations with Apple regarding various non-monetary aspects of the proposed settlement
`brokered by Magistrate Judge Cousins. Manning Decl., ¶ 20. On April 27, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a
`motion for preliminary approval of the $18 million settlement based on Magistrate Judge
`Cousins’s mediator’s proposal (the “Settlement”). Dkt