ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`JOINT ADMIN. MOT. TO MODIFY CASE SCHEDULE
`CASE NO. 5:24-cv-01270-EKL (VKD)
`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
`Belinda S Lee (SBN 199635)
`Sarah M. Ray (SBN 229670)
`Aaron T. Chiu (SBN 287788)
`Alicia R. Jovais (SBN 296172)
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: +1.415.391.0600
`Fax: +1.415.395.8095
`belinda.lee@lw.com
`sarah.ray@lw.com
`aaron.chiu@lw.com
`alicia.jovais@lw.com
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
`Ben M. Harrington (SBN 313877)
`Benjamin J. Siegel (SBN 256260)
`HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
`715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
`Berkeley, CA 94710
`Telephone: +1.510.725.3000
`Fax: +1.510.725.3001
`benh@hbsslaw.com
`bens@hbsslaw.com
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed
`Class
`[Additional counsel on signature page]
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`JULIANNA FELIX GAMBOA and
`THOMAS DOROBIALA, individually and
`on behalf of all others similarly situated,
`Plaintiffs,
`v.
`APPLE INC.,
`Defendant.
`CASE NO. 5:24-cv-01270-EKL (VKD)
`JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
`TO
`MODIFY CASE SCHEDULE
`Case 5:24-cv-01270-EKL Document 80 Filed 10/17/25 Page 1 of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`1
`JOINT ADMIN. MOT. TO MODIFY CASE SCHEDULE
`CASE NO. 5:24-cv-01270-EKL (VKD)
`
`
`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
`Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11, Plaintiffs Julianna Felix Gamboa and Thomas Dorobiala
`(together, “Plaintiffs”), and Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple” and, together with Plaintiffs, the
`“Parties”) move the Court to modify the case schedule per the discussion at the July 30, 2025 Case
`Management Conference. The Parties agree on al l but one date in the proposed modified case
`schedule—the deadline for Plaintiffs’ class certif ication motion. The Parties met and conferred
`multiple times, including October 10, 2025, but were unable to agree to the deadline for Plaintiffs’
`class certification motion.
`I. Joint Statement Regarding Proposed Schedule
`On June 16, 2025, the Court denied Apple’s motion to dismiss but deferred judgment on
`the timeliness of Plaintiffs’ antitrust claims. ECF No. 70 at 9–11. In the Parties’ July 16, 2025
`Case Management Statement, Appl e requested that the Court bifurcate discovery and first allow
`limited discovery and an early summary j udgment motion on the threshold and potentially
`dispositive issue of whether Plaintiffs’ claims ar e time-barred under the applicable statute of
`limitations. ECF No. 73 at 6–11. Plaintiffs opposed that request. Id. at 2–6. At the July 30, 2025
`Case Management Conference, the Court deni ed Apple’s request to bifurcate discovery but
`directed the Parties to meet and confer on a schedule for an early motion for summary judgment
`by Apple on the statute of limitations (“SOL MSJ”). ECF No. 75. The Parties met and conferred
`and agreed on a modified schedule except for P laintiffs’ deadline to file a motion for class
`certification. See Decl. of A. Jovais ¶¶ 4–5. The Parties’ agreed and disputed dates are as follows:
`Event Current Deadline
`(ECF No. 63)
`Plaintiffs’
`Proposed Dates
`Apple’s Proposed
`Dates
`Substantial Completion of
`Document and Data
`Production
`December 16,
`2025
`
`Unchanged
`Deadline to Complete
`Initial ADR Session January 14, 2026 Unchanged
`Close of Fact Discovery July 15, 2026 Unchanged
`Apple’s SOL MSJ1 August 5, 2026
`Plaintiffs’ Opposition to
`Apple’s SOL MSJ September 2, 2026
`Apple’s Reply in support September 23, 2026
`
`1 As discussed at the July 30 Case Management Conference, ECF No. 75, the Parties understand
`that the Court is amenable to bifurcated summary judgment briefing, first on statute of limitations
`issues, as described herein. Apple reserves all rights to move subsequently for summary judgment
`on any additional ground(s).
`Case 5:24-cv-01270-EKL Document 80 Filed 10/17/25 Page 2 of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO 2
`JOINT ADMIN. MOT. TO MODIFY CASE SCHEDULE
`CASE NO. 5:24-cv-01270-EKL (VKD)
`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
`Event Current Deadline
`(ECF No. 63)
`Plaintiffs’
`Proposed Dates
`Apple’s Proposed
`Dates
`of SOL MSJ
`Plaintiffs’ Class
`Certification Mot. and
`Supporting Expert
`Report(s)
`February 11, 2026
`90 days after order
`on Apple’s SOL
`MSJ if denied
`2 weeks after order
`on Apple’s SOL MSJ
`if denied
`Apple’s Opposition to
`Plaintiffs’ Class
`Certification Mot. and
`Supporting Expert
`Report(s) and any Motions
`to Exclude Plaintiffs’
`Supporting Expert
`Testimony
`April 8, 2026
`8 weeks after the deadline for Plaintiffs’
`Class Certification Mot. and Supporting
`Expert Report(s)
`Plaintiffs’ Reply in
`Support of Class
`Certification Mot. and
`Rebuttal Expert Report(s)
`May 20, 2026
`6 weeks after the deadline for Apple’s
`Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Class Certification
`Mot. and Supporting Expert Report(s)
`Class Certification Hearing June 17, 2026
`4 weeks after Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support
`of Class Certification Mot. and Rebuttal
`Expert Report(s)
`II. Plaintiffs’ Position on Class Certification Schedule
`In denying Apple’s request to bifurcate discovery, the Court instructed the parties to confer
`on a schedule that would permit Apple to move “for summary judgment on statute of limitations
`issues after merits discovery closes but before class certification and other summary judgment
`proceedings.” See July 30, 2025 Minute Entry (emphasis added). Plaintiffs had invited this staging
`and, in particular, encouraged Apple to file “an early summary judgment motion on the issue of
`timeliness.” ECF No. 73 at 12. Plaintiffs do not believe Apple has a viable statute-of-limitations
`defense, including because Apple has engaged in a continuing violation of the antitrust laws. See,
`e.g., Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Mach. Corp. , 392 U.S. 481, 502 & n.15 (1968). But it
`nevertheless makes good case-management sense to resolve issues of timeliness before either party
`bears the substantial cost of pre paring their class certification expert reports. In Section 2
`monopolization cases, class certification reports take months to develop and typically cost millions
`of dollars. See, e.g., Cameron, et al. v. Apple Inc., 19-cv-3074 (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. No. 465-1 at Ex.
`7 ($2.6 million cost of opening class certificatio n expert reports in comparable monopolization
`case); In re Google Play Developer Antitrust Litig., 20-cv-5792 (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. No. 243-2, Ex 5
`($5.3 million cost of opening and rebuttal class certification reports in comparable monopolization
`Case 5:24-cv-01270-EKL Document 80 Filed 10/17/25 Page 3 of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO 3
`JOINT ADMIN. MOT. TO MODIFY CASE SCHEDULE
`CASE NO. 5:24-cv-01270-EKL (VKD)
`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).
`Apple’s prior proposed schedule would have deferred all class certification proceedings
`indefinitely pending resolution of Apple’s threshold statute-of-limitations motion. See ECF No.
`73 at 12. Now, Apple proposes that Plaintiffs move for class certification—with expert reports—
`within a mere 14 days of the Court resolving Apple’s threshold summary judgment motion.
`Neither extreme makes sense. Plaintiffs offer a more sensible middle ground— i.e., that Plaintiffs
`submit their class certification motion and suppor ting reports within 90 days of a decision on
`timeliness. The Court should adopt Plaintiffs’ proposal, and reject Apple’s, for three reasons.
`First, Apple’s proposed schedule does not serv e the Court’s objective of deciding
`timeliness “before class certification” proceedings. See July 30, 2025 Minute Entry. Because it
`takes months to prepare class certification reports in a monopolization case, a schedule that
`requires Plaintiffs to move for class certificati on within 14 days of a ruling on the statute-of-
`limitations would not defer class certification until timeliness is resolved. To the contrary, Apple’s
`schedule would require that Plaintiffs fully prepare their class certification papers so that they
`could be finalized within 14 days of a ruling. That defeats the entire purpose of the staged schedule
`the Court is contemplating.
`Second, Apple’s proposal would disproportionately burden Plaintiffs. Under Apple’s
`schedule, while Plaintiffs would incur the substa ntial expense (likely millions of dollars out-of-
`pocket) to develop class certification expert reports prior to a summary-judgment decision, Apple
`could defer this burden and expense because its class certification opposition will not be due until
`60 days after Plaintiffs’ motion. See ECF No. 63 at 2. Apple’s proposal would further prejudice
`Plaintiffs by requiring that Plaintiffs simultaneously prepare summary judgment and class
`certification papers, whereas Apple could stagger its efforts.
`Third, Plaintiffs propose a more orderly approach th at aligns with the Court’s objectives
`and keeps the case progressing expeditiously with a realistic class-certification deadline. Apple
`claims that Plaintiffs’ proposal interjects delay, but that is not the case. Plaintiffs would have no
`objection to proceeding under the existing schedule with the deadlines that currently exist. But if
`Apple wishes to pursue an early summary judgment motion on timeliness, then the schedule should
`Case 5:24-cv-01270-EKL Document 80 Filed 10/17/25 Page 4 of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO 4
`JOINT ADMIN. MOT. TO MODIFY CASE SCHEDULE
`CASE NO. 5:24-cv-01270-EKL (VKD)
`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
`ensure that this threshold issue is resolved before the parties undertake the expense of class
`certification. That is the whole point of resolving timeliness first.
`III. Apple’s Position on Class Certification Schedule
`Plaintiffs’ proposal to inject a 90-day delay into the case that inures solely to their benefit
`is neither reasonable nor fair. If the Court en ters an order denying Apple’s SOL MSJ, the Court
`should order Plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification within 2 weeks of that order.
`First, there is no good cause to impose a 90-day delay between an order denying Apple’s
`SOL MSJ and Plaintiffs’ class certification motion. Under the current schedule, Plaintiffs have
`less than 60 days between substantial completion of document discovery and the deadline to file
`their class certification motion. See ECF No. 63. The Parties’ agreed-upon modified schedule
`above provides Plaintiffs at least 9 months following the substantial completion deadline to prepare
`and file a class certification motion. Plaintiffs’ request for 90 more days would amount to an
`unnecessary stay of the case. Plaintiffs will have ample time to develop the record and to prepare
`their motion for class certification under Apple’s proposed schedule. And, contrary to Plaintiffs’
`suggestion, Apple’s proposed schedule maintains the Court’s objective of ensuring that timeliness
`issues are decided first before having to turn to class certification proceedings, while also ensuring
`that the case continues to progress in the interim without undue delay.2
`Second, Plaintiffs rejected a phased discovery approach that would have allowed them to
`postpone class certification work until after a resolution of the issue of whether their claims are
`time-barred. Plaintiffs cannot now complain about a schedule that will require them to continue
`prosecuting their case after the close of fact di scovery by pursuing class certification while the
`Court evaluates, and ultimately rules on, Apple’s SOL MSJ. The argument Plaintiffs now make
`ignores that Apple’s prior proposal (which Plaintiff s rejected) would have also deferred fact
`discovery unrelated to the statute of limitations, pres erving efficiency for both parties. The one-
`2 Plaintiffs’ complaint that they would be required to effectively prepare th eir class certification
`analyses and report(s) in parallel with the SOL MSJ briefing while Apple could “stagger its efforts”
`is without merit. Plaintiffs brought this case and ar e not entitled to a stay of the case that would
`only benefit them.
`Case 5:24-cv-01270-EKL Document 80 Filed 10/17/25 Page 5 of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO 5
`JOINT ADMIN. MOT. TO MODIFY CASE SCHEDULE
`CASE NO. 5:24-cv-01270-EKL (VKD)
`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
`sided proposal Plaintiffs now seek would provide them all the benefits of bifurcation while denying
`Apple similar efficiencies.
`Plaintiffs’ proposed 90-day pause between an order denying Apple’s SOL MSJ and the
`filing of their class certification motion would unnecessarily delay this case by allowing Plaintiffs
`to pause prosecuting their case for at least 3 months. 3 This stay would occur only after Apple
`incurs significant and disproportionate costs of merits discovery that may ultimately be
`unnecessary if Plaintiffs’ claims are found to be untimely. Plaintiffs are thus wrong that Apple’s
`proposed schedule would disproportionately burden them. Apple will bear the significant and
`disproportionate cost of merits discovery whereas P laintiffs—largely passive recipients of this
`discovery—will bear only a fraction of the discov ery burden and cost. Plaintiffs’ proposal is not
`an equitable solution.
`Third, Apple’s proposed schedule is consistent with Rule 23’s directive that courts resolve
`class certification “[a]t an early practicable time,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1), and with the Court’s
`desire to move this case forward expeditiously. See Hr’g Tr., July 30, 2025, at 20-21 (expressing
`concern that bifurcating di scovery would create delay). 4 Plaintiffs’ repeated invocation of the
`Court’s openness to Apple filing an early SOL MSJ prior to class certification conflates the Court’s
`desired sequence of events with a notion that the Court endorsed Plaintiffs’ apparent preference to
`delay preparing their class certification materials. Plaintiffs’ unnecessary, 90-day pause prior to
`commencing briefing on class certification would unduly delay the case and any class certification
`ruling. By contrast, Apple’s proposal appropriately balances efficie ncy and fairness, serves the
`Court’s goals, and affords Plaintiffs ample time to prepare their motion for class certification while
`also ensuring this case continues to move forward swiftly.
`3 Plaintiffs’ proposal would functionally allow them to refrain from prosecuting their case (by
`postponing and avoiding any work on class certification) for at least 3 months, but that delay may
`very well be longer given the time the Court may need to rule on Apple’s SOL MSJ.
`4 Apple’s proposal is consistent with the Court’s objective to decide timeliness as a threshold
`matter. Apple’s proposal merely ensures that, should Apple’s SOL MSJ be denied, Plaintiffs be
`required to promptly move for class certification.
`Case 5:24-cv-01270-EKL Document 80 Filed 10/17/25 Page 6 of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO 6
`JOINT ADMIN. MOT. TO MODIFY CASE SCHEDULE
`CASE NO. 5:24-cv-01270-EKL (VKD)
`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
`Dated: October 17, 2025
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`By: /s/ Alicia R. Jovais
` Alicia R. Jovais
`Belinda S Lee (SBN 199635)
`Sarah M. Ray (SBN 229670)
`Aaron T. Chiu (SBN 287788)
`Alicia R. Jovais (SBN 296172)
`505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
`Telephone: +1.415.391.0600
`Fax: +1.415.395.8095
`belinda.lee@lw.com
`sarah.ray@lw.com
`aaron.chiu@lw.com
`alicia.jovais@lw.com
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
`HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
`By: /s/ Ben M. Harrington
`Ben M. Harrington
`Ben M. Harrington (SBN 313877)
`Benjamin J. Siegel (SBN 256260)
`715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
`Berkeley, CA 94710
`Telephone: +1510.725.3000
`Fax: +1.510.725.3001
`benh@hbsslaw.com
`bens@hbsslaw.com
`Mark T. Vazquez (pro hac vice)
`455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410
`Chicago, IL 60611
`Telephone: +1.708.628.4962
`markv@hbsslaw.com
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed
`Class
`Case 5:24-cv-01270-EKL Document 80 Filed 10/17/25 Page 7 of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO 7
`JOINT ADMIN. MOT. TO MODIFY CASE SCHEDULE
`CASE NO. 5:24-cv-01270-EKL (VKD)
`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
`SIGNATURE ATTESTATION
`I, Alicia R. Jovais, am the CM/ECF user whose ID and password are being used to file
`this Joint Administrative Motion to 0RGLI\&DVH6FKHGXOH . In compliance with Local Rule
`5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from
`each of the other signatories.
`Dated: October 17, 2025 Respectfully submitted,
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`By: /s/ Alicia R. Jovais
` Alicia R. Jovais
`Attorney for Defendant Apple Inc.
`Case 5:24-cv-01270-EKL Document 80 Filed 10/17/25 Page 8 of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`