Turner v. Apple, Inc.

Background

Alasdair Turner filed a putative class action against Apple, Inc., alleging that iOS 13 contained hidden code that caused iPhones to transmit cellular data without users’ approval or knowledge. Turner alleged that this increased users’ cellular-data consumption, costs, and use of limited data plans. His operative complaint concerned iOS 13 and the same putative class identified in his original complaint.

The court’s case-management order set May 23, 2022, as the deadline to amend the pleadings. Turner later sought leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. He proposed to add details about how the challenged code worked, add a claim for conversion of users’ cellular data, and expand the class definition to include iOS versions other than iOS 13. He also sought to extend case deadlines. Apple separately moved to stay discovery while the amendment motion was pending.

Legal standard

Because Turner sought amendment after the court-ordered deadline, the court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)’s good-cause standard before considering Rule 15’s more liberal amendment standard. The good-cause inquiry primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking amendment. A lack of diligence is sufficient to deny leave to amend.

Court’s reasoning

The court concluded that Turner had not shown good cause for any proposed amendment. Adding more detail about the iOS code would not change the scope of the existing claims, and Apple already had fair notice of those claims. The court also held that Turner had the information needed to assert a cellular-data conversion claim earlier. The court rejected Turner’s argument that a recent Ninth Circuit memorandum decision had changed the law, explaining that the decision was nonprecedential and that conversion of cellular data had previously been an open issue rather than a claim that was barred.

The court further found that Turner had not diligently pursued the discovery supporting his proposed expansion of the class definition. The parties took about two years to agree to a protective order and an electronic-discovery protocol before document production began, and Turner did not move to compel discovery during that period. The court also found that Turner did not diligently seek amendment after he became aware of potential grounds for it. He agreed to an April 12, 2024 deadline but did not file his motion until June 14, 2024, and did not timely ask Apple or the court for an extension. The court additionally stated that expanding the class definition could prejudice Apple, although it noted that this finding was not necessary because Turner had failed to show diligence.

Rulings

The court denied Turner’s motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. It denied as moot Apple’s motion to stay discovery. The court directed the parties to meet and confer about the case schedule and to file either a stipulated schedule or a joint statement of their scheduling proposals within 14 days of the order. The opinion did not decide the merits of Turner’s underlying claims against Apple.