throbber
Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 429 Filed 11/24/20 Page 1 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
`
`
`
`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

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


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

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

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

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

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

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

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

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

Become a Member

One Moment Please

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

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

Your document is on its way!

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

Sealed Document

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

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


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket