Case 3:22-cv-02746-JD Document 114 Filed 12/30/22 Page 1 of 24
`
`Brian C. Rocca, Bar No. 221576
`brian.rocca@morganlewis.com
`Sujal J. Shah, Bar No. 215230
`sujal.shah@morganlewis.com
`Michelle Park Chiu, Bar No. 248421
`michelle.chiu@morganlewis.com
`Minna Lo Naranjo, Bar No. 259005
`minna.naranjo@morganlewis.com
`Rishi P. Satia, Bar No. 301958
`rishi.satia@morganlewis.com
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`One Market, Spear Street Tower
`San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
`Telephone: (415) 442-1000
`Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
`Richard S. Taffet, pro hac vice
`richard.taffet@morganlewis.com
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`101 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10178-0060
`Telephone: (212) 309-6000
`Facsimile: (212) 309-6001
`
`Counsel for Defendants
`
`Glenn D. Pomerantz, Bar No. 112503
`glenn.pomerantz@mto.com
`Kuruvilla Olasa, Bar No. 281509
`kuruvilla.olasa@mto.com
`Nicholas R. Sidney
`nick.sidney@mto.com
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`350 South Grand Avenue, Fiftieth Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90071
`Telephone: (213) 683-9100
`
`Kyle W. Mach, Bar No. 282090
`kyle.mach@mto.com
`Justin P. Raphael, Bar No. 292380
`justin.raphael@mto.com
`Emily C. Curran-Huberty, Bar No. 293065
`emily.curran-huberty@mto.com
`Dane P. Shikman, Bar No. 313656
`dane.shikman@mto.com
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`560 Mission Street, Twenty Seventh Fl.
`San Francisco, California 94105
`Telephone: (415) 512-4000
`
`Jonathan I. Kravis, pro hac vice
`jonathan.kravis@mto.com
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`601 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Ste 500E
`Washington, D.C. 20001
`Telephone: (202) 220-1100
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`IN RE GOOGLE PLAY STORE
`ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`This Document Relates To:
`
`Match Group, LLC et al. v. Google LLC et al.,
`Case No. 3:22-cv-02746-JD
`
`Epic Games Inc. v. Google LLC et al., Case
`No. 3:20-cv-05671-JD
`
`Case No. 3:21-md-02981-JD
`MDL No. 2891
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION
`TO EPIC’S AND MATCH’S
`MOTION TO AMEND
`COMPLAINTS
`Judge: Hon. James Donato
`Date: November 17, 2022
`Time: 10:00 a.m. Pacific Time
`
`Case No. 3:21-md-02981-JD
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EPIC’S AND MATCH’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINTS
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02746-JD Document 114 Filed 12/30/22 Page 2 of 24
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................1
`BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................3
`A.
`Relevant Procedural History .....................................................................................3
`B.
`Epic’s and Match’s Proposed Amendments .............................................................4
`ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................5
`A.
`Governing Legal Standards .......................................................................................5
`B.
`Plaintiffs Have Not Met Their Burden to Demonstrate Good Cause........................5
`1.
`Epic and Match Fail to Meet Their Burden to Demonstrate
`Diligence .......................................................................................................6
`Allowing Amendment Would Severely Prejudice Google ...........................8
`2.
`Additional Discovery Would Threaten the Existing Case Schedule ..........11
`3.
`Amendment Is Not Warranted Because It Would Be Futile ...................................11
`1.
`Plaintiffs Fail to Plead a Horizontal Agreement Not to Compete ...............12
`2.
`Per Se Treatment Is Unavailable Here As a Matter of Antitrust Law ........14
`CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................15
`
`C.
`
`-i-
`Case No. 3:21-md-02981-JD
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EPIC’S AND MATCH’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINTS
`
`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
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02746-JD Document 114 Filed 12/30/22 Page 3 of 24
`
`
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Amcor Flexibles Inc v. Fresh Express Inc.,
`No. C 14-01025 LB, 2015 WL 890360 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2015) ..............................................7
`
`AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc.,
`465 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2006) .......................................................................................................5
`
`In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litig.,
`554 F. Supp. 2d 1003 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ....................................................................................12
`
`Bay Area Surgical Mgmt. LLC v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.,
`166 F. Supp. 3d 988 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ......................................................................................10
`
`Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ............................................................................................................12, 13
`
`Bonin v. Calderon,
`59 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 1995) .................................................................................................11, 12
`
`California ex rel. Harris v. Safeway, Inc.,
`651 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................................14
`
`In re Citric Acid Litig.,
`191 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 1999) ...............................................................................................9, 12
`
`Dimidowich v. Bell & Howell,
`803 F.2d 1473 (9th Cir. 1986) ...................................................................................................14
`
`Eberhard v. Cal. Highway Patrol,
`No. 14-cv-01910-JD, 2015 WL 4735213 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2015) .......................................6
`
`EPIS, Inc. v. Fid. & Guar. Life Ins. Co.,
`156 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (N.D. Cal. 2001) ......................................................................................7
`
`Frame-Wilson v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ, 2022 WL 741878, at *7 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 11, 2022) .....................14
`
`Frost v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`801 F. App’x 496 (9th Cir. 2020) .............................................................................................12
`
`FTC v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`969 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2020) ...........................................................................................9, 14, 15
`
`In re Google Digital Advert. Antitrust Litig.,
`No. 21-cv-6841, 2022 WL 4226932 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 13, 2022) ........................................13, 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`Case No. 3:21-md-02981-JD
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EPIC’S AND MATCH’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINTS
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02746-JD Document 114 Filed 12/30/22 Page 4 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`Gough v. Rossmoor Corp.,
`585 F.2d 381 (9th Cir. 1978) .....................................................................................................15
`
`Guerrero v. Cnty. of Alameda,
`No. C 18-02379 WHA, 2018 WL 4680183 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2018) ...................................12
`
`Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii,
`902 F.2d 1385 (9th Cir. 1990) .....................................................................................................5
`
`Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,
`975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) ...................................................................................................5, 6
`
`Krehl v. Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream Co.,
`664 F.2d 1348 (9th Cir. 1982) ...................................................................................................15
`
`Leegin Creative Leather Prod., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.,
`551 U.S. 877 (2007) ........................................................................................................9, 14, 15
`
`Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
`475 U.S. 574 (1986) ..................................................................................................................13
`
`Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd. v. Seamaster Logistics, Inc.,
`No. 10-cv-5591-SC, 2012 WL 6095089 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2012) ............................................7
`
`Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Serv. Corp.,
`465 U.S. 752 (1984) ..................................................................................................................13
`
`In re Musical Instruments & Equip. Antitrust Litig.,
`798 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2015) ...................................................................................................12
`
`Name.Space, Inc. v. Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Nos.,
`795 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2015) ...................................................................................................13
`
`NSS Labs, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.,
`No. 18-cv-05711-BLF, 2019 WL 3804679 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2019) ....................................12
`
`Ohio v. American Express Co.,
`138 S. Ct. 2274 (2018) ..............................................................................................................15
`
`Oracle Am., Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Enter. Co.,
`No. 16-CV-01393-JST, 2017 WL 3149297 (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2017) ......................................8
`
`Par Pharm., Inc. v. Takeda Pharm. Co.,
`No. 5:13-cv-01927-LHK-PSG, 2014 WL 3704819 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2014) ..........................7
`
`Schor v. Abbott Lab’ys,
`457 F.3d 608 (7th Cir. 2006) .....................................................................................................14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`Case No. 3:21-md-02981-JD
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EPIC’S AND MATCH’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINTS
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 3:22-cv-02746-JD Document 114 Filed 12/30/22 Page 5 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`Singh v. City of Oakland,
`295 F. App’x 118 (9th Cir. 2008) .............................................................................................11
`
`Solomon v. N. Am. Life & Cas. Ins. Co.,
`151 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 1998) ...................................................................................................11
`
`Stonebrae, L.P. v. Toll Bros.,
`No. C-08-0221 EMC, 2010 WL 114010 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2010) ...........................................12
`
`Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of R.I.,
`373 F.3d 57 (1st Cir. 2004) .......................................................................................................12
`
`Texaco Inc. v. Dagher,
`547 U.S. 1 (2006) ......................................................................................................................14
`
`Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`No. C04-02123 MJJ, 2007 WL 4104099 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2007) ...............................5, 8, 11
`
`United States v. eBay, Inc.,
`968 F. Supp. 2d 1030 (N.D. Cal. 2013) ....................................................................................10
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`Sherman Act § 1 .................................................................................................................. 1, passim
`
`Sherman Act § 2 .................................................................................................................. 1, passim
`
`FEDERAL RULES
`
`Rule 12(b)(6) ...................................................................................................................................12
`
`Rule 15 ............................................................................................................................................11
`
`Rule 15(a) ....................................................................................................................................5, 11
`
`Rule 16 ..............................................................................................................................................2
`
`Rule 16(b) ...................................................................................................................................5, 11
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Epic Games, Frequently Asked Questions, https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-
`US/epic-games-store-faq (last updated Aug. 18, 2021) ............................................................13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`Case No. 3:21-md-02981-JD
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EPIC’S AND MATCH’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINTS
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02746-JD Document 114 Filed 12/30/22 Page 6 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Having reached the very end of nearly two years of discovery, with no evidence of harm
`to competition, Epic and Match (“Plaintiffs”) now seek to transform the case. Under the guise of
`merely “conforming their pleadings,” Plaintiffs are attempting to introduce a fundamentally new
`theory of liability after the close of fact discovery and ten months after the deadline to amend the
`pleadings. Not only is this effort far too late, it also seriously prejudices Google by depriving it
`of the ability to take discovery demonstrating that Plaintiffs’ new theory is baseless.
`The initiative on which Plaintiffs base their proposed new claims—formerly known within
`Google as “Project Hug”—provides incentives for game developers to make their products and
`services available on the Google Play store. It does not prohibit these game developers from
`creating competing app stores, as Epic and Match allege. Rather, these agreements reflect a
`competitive effort by Google to provide more value to key customers in order to win their
`business and, in turn, enhance the value of the Play store for users.
`Project Hug is nothing new to Plaintiffs. Epic’s and Match’s existing complaints already
`allege that Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by maintaining a supposed monopoly
`through a variety of conduct, including “Project Hug,” an initiative to “throw extra
`love/promotion to top developers and games” to “prevent these developers from competing with
`Google Play.” MDL Dkt. 64 (“Epic FAC”) ¶ 128. Indeed, in August 2021, Epic’s CEO tweeted
`that, through Project Hug, Google was “pay[ing] off publishers to not compete with Google
`Play.” Declaration of Glenn. D. Pomerantz (“Pomerantz Decl.”), Ex. A.
`Despite knowing about Project Hug for well over a year—and despite publicly
`complaining that Project Hug involved Google paying top developers not to compete—Plaintiffs
`strategically chose to litigate Project Hug only as part of their Section 2 monopolization claims.
`That claim, like any Section 2 claim, will be resolved under the rule of reason: Plaintiffs have the
`burden of proving anticompetitive effects, and Google will have the opportunity to present
`procompetitive justifications. But now Epic and Match seek to add a new theory that Google’s
`Project Hug agreements violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, including as a per se matter. By
`doing so, Plaintiffs are attempting, at the last moment, to dispense with the need to show
`
`
`-1-
`Case No. 3:21-md-02981-JD
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EPIC’S AND MATCH’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINTS
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02746-JD Document 114 Filed 12/30/22 Page 7 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`anticompetitive effects or address procompetitive justifications. More importantly, Plaintiffs’
`gambit tries to shift the litigation battleground—after the close of discovery—to a new and very
`different question: whether there is evidence of a tacit agreement not to compete. The Court
`should reject this effort and deny the motion.
`First, this motion comes far too late, more than 10 months after the December 3, 2021,
`amendment deadline. Plaintiffs have been aware of this theory and the underlying facts that
`purportedly support it for many months, including as far back as July 2021, when Epic filed its
`First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Plaintiffs cannot carry their burden under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16
`to demonstrate that they were diligent in seeking amendment when they simultaneously contend
`that they put Google on notice of the underlying facts that they could have used to assert this
`theory many months ago. Mot. to Amend (“Mot.”) at 1:12-14; 2:21-22; 3:12-14. The motion can
`and should be denied on that basis alone.
`Second, permitting amendment at this late stage would severely prejudice Google. As
`noted above, Plaintiffs’ new claims would shift the key issues in dispute from the competitive
`effects of the Project Hug efforts to a very different question: whether Google entered tacit
`agreements not to compete. And that question will need to be answered at least two dozen times,
`as Plaintiffs allege unlawful agreements between Google and “at least” that many app developers.
`The focus of discovery on that new sweeping theory would be whether there is evidence of a
`horizontal agreement not to compete, including who agreed to what and when, and why
`developers’ decisions were unilateral and independent. Yet Google had no reason to seek
`discovery into those details, nor any reason to suspect that it would need to pull in each of the
`Project Hug developers into depositions to confirm the fact that there was never an agreement not
`to compete. Permitting amendment would deprive Google of the right to take this discovery.
`Third, at least as to Plaintiffs’ per se theory, amendment would also be futile. The
`proposed amended complaints do not come close to pleading an actual horizontal agreement not
`to compete, which must involve a meeting of the minds between Google and potential app store
`competitors. Even if such an agreement were sufficiently alleged here, it is not appropriate for
`per se treatment as a matter of clear antitrust law. At most, the complaints allege hybrid
`
`
`-2-
`Case No. 3:21-md-02981-JD
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EPIC’S AND MATCH’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINTS
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02746-JD Document 114 Filed 12/30/22 Page 8 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`agreements (i.e., having vertical and horizontal components) with Google’s customers, which are
`analyzed under the rule of reason, and per se treatment is inappropriate for novel business
`practices and technology markets in any event. These new claims are therefore facially invalid.
`BACKGROUND
`II.
`Relevant Procedural History
`A.
`Epic’s initial complaint alleged that Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act
`through a mélange of conduct and restrictive agreements targeted at mobile device manufacturers,
`smartphone users, and app developers. Epic Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 135-57 (Aug. 13, 2020).1 In support of
`this claims, Epic described its “belie[f]” that Google was striking deals with certain developers
`“to keep its monopolistic behavior publicly unchallenged,” id. ¶ 30, yet Epic did not assert any
`Section 1 claim based on that allegation.
`Later, in its July 21, 2021, amended complaint, Epic alleged that, through Project Hug,
`Google would “spend hundreds of millions of dollars on secret deals with over 20 top
`developers . . . in order to prevent these developers from competing with Google Play[.]” MDL
`Dkt. 64, ¶ 128. Epic quoted a Google document that allegedly suggested “several” of the
`developers “had ‘considered their own distribution and/or payments platforms.’” Id. As in its
`initial complaint, Epic made these allegations in service of its monopoly maintenance claim—it
`did not assert a Section 1 claim arising out of such alleged agreements, and it did not allege that
`the agreements, or any aspects of them, were per se unlawful.
`Shortly thereafter, on October 22, 2021, the Court entered a scheduling order setting
`December 3, 2021, as the deadline to amend. MDL Dkt.122.
`Then, on April 28, 2022, Epic addressed Project Hug again in its preliminary injunction
`motion. MDL Dkt.213. Epic argued that Google was “paying off top app developers to stop
`them from developing and launching competing Android app stores,” relying on testimony that
`had been taken many months earlier, and specifically citing a deal with developer Activision as
`
`1 “Epic Dkt.” refers to the docket for Epic Games Inc. v. Google LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-05671-
`JD. “Match Dkt.” refers to the docket for Match Group, LLC v. Google LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-
`02746-JD. “MDL Dkt.” refers to the docket for In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation,
`Case No. 3:21-md-02981-JD.
`
`
`-3-
`Case No. 3:21-md-02981-JD
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EPIC’S AND MATCH’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINTS
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02746-JD Document 114 Filed 12/30/22 Page 9 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`“illustrative” of this initiative. Id. at 9-10. Epic described this initiative as Google’s effort to
`“unlawfully protect[] its monopoly,” id. at 9, opting not to assert a Section 1 claim.
`Meanwhile, as Epic and other plaintiffs pressed their monopolization claims in court, and
`despite the fact that it was fully aware of this litigation and its effect on Match, Match chose to sit
`on the sidelines of the litigation.2 See Pomerantz Decl. Ex. B. When Match did eventually file its
`complaint on May 9, 2022, Match Dkt.1 (“Match Compl.”), it followed Epic’s path on Project
`Hug. Like Epic, Match alleged that Project Hug was an effort “to pay hundreds of millions of
`dollars to key app developers to deter them from offering their apps via distribution channels
`outside Google Play[,]” and “Google had reached deals with most of the developers it targeted.”
`Id. ¶ 114; see also id. ¶ 120. Like Epic, Match also did not assert a Section 1 claim based on
`these alleged agreements. See id. ¶¶ 241-50.
`With no Section 1 claim arising out of these agreements anywhere to be found in this
`litigation, the parties proceeded with fact discovery, which closed on September 22, 2022.
`Epic’s and Match’s Proposed Amendments
`B.
`After the close of fact discovery, on September 29, 2022, plaintiffs, including Epic and
`Match, filed a notice reminding the Court of a previously submitted proposed case schedule.
`MDL Dkt.336. Epic and Match stated at that time that they would “work towards the dates in the
`proposed schedule,” but did not mention a forthcoming new effort to amend their complaints. Id.
`at 3. The very next day, September 30, 2022—ten months after the December 3, 2021
`amendment deadline—Epic surprised Google with news that it imminently planned to amend its
`complaint again, this time to add new Section 1 claims directed solely at the Project Hug
`agreements, including a claim that, through Project Hug, Google committed a per se antitrust
`violation. Pomerantz Decl. ¶ 2. Google declined to consent to this belated and prejudicial
`amendment. Id. At the plaintiffs’ request, the Court then entered the new schedule on October 5,
`2022, reminding the parties that the deadline to amend pleadings was “Closed.” MDL Dkt.338.
`
`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
`
`
`2 At an August 4, 2022, hearing discussing Match’s request to extend the schedule, the Court
`noted that Match knew about this litigation long before it chose to file a complaint: “You could
`have filed earlier. . . . it is not like you didn’t know this was happening.” MDL Dkt.318 at 52:8-9.
`
`
`-4-
`Case No. 3:21-md-02981-JD
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EPIC’S AND MATCH’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINTS
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02746-JD Document 114 Filed 12/30/22 Page 10 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`Epic proceeded with its plan, and hours before the filing of this Motion, Match indicated it would
`join the effort. Pomerantz Decl. ¶ 2.
`Epic’s and Match’s proposed amendments substantially mirror each other. They allege
`that, through “Project Hug,” Google “paid or otherwise induced” certain app developers to
`commit to release their titles on Google Play at least as soon as through other channels, and to
`ensure content and feature parity between apps released on Google Play and those distributed
`through other mobile app stores. See Epic PSAC ¶ 198; Match PFAC ¶ 273.3 Even though they
`do not specifically allege an actual agreement between Google and any app developer involving a
`commitment not to open a competing app store, Epic and Match assert claims under Section 1 of
`the Sherman Act, including per se claims. In support of these claims, they assert that Google’s
`intent was to thwart competition, and that the agreements had the effect of preventing the
`emergence of new app stores. Epic PSAC ¶¶ 198-201; Match PFAC ¶¶ 275-76. The complaints
`give special focus to agreements Google reached with Activision Blizzard and Riot Games, two
`of Google’s major game developer partners (and Epic’s competitors). Id.
`III. ARGUMENT
`Governing Legal Standards
`A.
`Because Epic and Match seek to amend their complaint after the December 3, 2021,
`deadline to amend, their motions are governed in the first instance by Rule 16(b), which requires
`a showing of “good cause” to amend the scheduling order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b); Johnson v.
`Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992). If (and only if) they surmount
`Rule 16(b)’s hurdle, then they must also show that amendment is proper under Rule 15(a), which
`permits amendment only when “justice so requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), and “is not to be
`granted automatically,” Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990).
`Plaintiffs Have Not Met Their Burden to Demonstrate Good Cause
`B.
`Under Rule 16(b), Plaintiffs have the burden to demonstrate good cause, which is “more
`stringent” than the standard under Rule 15(a). AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc.,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`3 “Epic PSAC” refers to Epic’s Proposed Second Amended Complaint (MDL Dkt.344, Ex. A).
`“Match PFAC” refers to Match’s Proposed First Amended Complaint (MDL Dkt.344, Ex. K).
`
`
`-5-
`Case No. 3:21-md-02981-JD
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EPIC’S AND MATCH’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINTS
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02746-JD Document 114 Filed 12/30/22 Page 11 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`465 F.3d 946, 952 (9th Cir. 2006). Specifically, they must demonstrate that they were diligent in
`pursuing amendment. See Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., No. C04-02123 MJJ,
`2007 WL 4104099, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2007). If they cannot, the inquiry ends there and
`leave to amend should be denied. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. Prejudice can also serve as an
`additional reason to deny the motion. Id.
`Epic and Match Fail to Meet Their Burden to Demonstrate Diligence
`1.
`
`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
`
`Plaintiffs cannot credibly argue that they were diligent in seeking amendment given the
`allegations regarding Project Hug in Epic’s July 2021 First Amended Complaint. See, supra, at 3
`(referring to “secret deals . . . in order to prevent these developers from competing”). In fact, the
`same day its amended complaint became public, Epic’s CEO, Tim Sweeney, tweeted that Google
`had a “secret ‘Project Hug’ to pay off publishers to not compete with Google Play,” Pomerantz
`Decl., Ex. A (emphasis added). Epic could plainly have chosen to assert a Section 1 claim based
`on the facts it pleaded and knew about at that time in July 2021, yet it chose, instead, to wait until
`after the close of discovery in September 2022. This alone is sufficient to deny the motion.
`Nor can Plaintiffs plausibly assert that their new allegations are justified by recently
`obtained evidence. As an initial matter, while Plaintiffs provide a general description of
`documents and testimony they obtained through discovery regarding Project Hug, they do not
`provide any explanation whatsoever for why those documents or testimony were necessary for
`them to amend. See Eberhard v. Cal. Highway Patrol, No. 14-cv-01910-JD, 2015 WL 4735213,
`at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2015) (Donato, J.) (rejecting amendment in light of additional discovery
`where “the essential facts” were previously known to the moving party).
`In fact, the bulk of the documents and testimony referenced in Plaintiffs’ proposed
`amended complaints and in the Motion were produced many months ago. With respect to
`documents, the internal Google “email” cited in the proposed amendments, Epic PSAC ¶ 199,
`Match PFAC ¶ 274, was produced by Google ten months ago. Pomerantz Decl. ¶ 4. Nearly
`30,000 documents related to Project Hug and approximately 37,000 documents referencing the
`developers identified in the motions—Activision, Riot, and Supercell—were produced before the
`December 3, 2021, amendment deadline. Id. With respect to testimony, the deposition of
`
`
`-6-
`Case No. 3:21-md-02981-JD
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EPIC’S AND MATCH’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINTS
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02746-JD Document 114 Filed 12/30/22 Page 12 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`Lawrence Koh, on which Epic and Match heavily rely, Mot. 3, was likewise taken ten months
`ago. Id. Another Google witness, Michael Marchak, also testified extensively about Google’s
`Project Hug incentive deals with developers in response to Plaintiffs’ focused questioning,
`including testifying about communications with Activision and Riot regarding potentially
`developing their own app stores, at his deposition nine months ago. Pomerantz Decl., Ex. C.
`And Epic made the same allegations that it now says support a Section 1 claim in its preliminary
`injunction motion filed five months ago, in which Epic accused Google of “paying off top app
`developers,” including Activision, “to stop them from developing and launching competing
`Android app stores.” MDL Dkt.213 at 9.
`Motions to amend are routinely denied as dilatory when the moving party waits far less
`time than Epic and Match did after obtaining evidence. E.g., Amcor Flexibles Inc v. Fresh
`Express Inc., No. C 14-01025 LB, 2015 WL 890360, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2015) (waiting 49
`days to seek amendment after learning of new facts showed lack of diligence); Mitsui O.S.K.
`Lines, Ltd. v. Seamaster Logistics, Inc., No. 10-cv-5591-SC, 2012 WL 6095089, at *1, 3 (N.D.
`Cal. Dec. 7, 2012) (waiting nearly two months showed lack of diligence); Par Pharm., Inc. v.
`Takeda Pharm. Co., No. 5:13-cv-01927-LHK-PSG, 2014 WL 3704819, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 23,
`2014) (four months was not diligent); EPIS, Inc. v. Fid. & Guar. Life Ins. Co., 156 F. Supp. 2d
`1116, 1133 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (three months was not diligent).4
`Indeed, the substance of the deposition testimony cited by Plaintiffs confirms that they
`learned nothing new from these depositions. Activision’s CFO Armin Zerza and Google
`employee Purnima Kochikar both testified that Google and Activision never entered into an
`agreement that Activision would not open its own app store. See Pomerantz Decl., Ex. D (Zerza
`Dep.) at 209:14-22; Zaken Decl., Ex. I (Kochikar Dep) at 139:15-23. Indeed, the “pertinent
`
`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
`
`
`4 Match joined the case in May 2022, but their complaint demonstrates the same knowledge of
`these facts, they had complete access to Epic’s FAC by August 2021, and they received access to
`Google’s entire discovery record after joining the case. Pomerantz Decl. ¶ 3. Match also made a
`tactical choice to wait on the sidelines of this litigation, while pressing the same antitrust theories
`behind the scenes with state enforcers since at least before Epic filed its August 2020 complaint.
`See Pomerantz Decl., Ex. B. The Court has recognized that same point. MDL Dkt.318 at 52:8-9
`(Court: “You could have filed earlier. . . . it is not like you didn’t know this was happening.”).
`
`
`-7-
`Case No. 3:21-md-02981-JD
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO EPIC’S AND MATCH’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINTS
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02746-JD Document 114 Filed 12/30/22 Page 13 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`deposition testimony” (Mot. 12) Plaintiffs use to defend their delay consis