Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 14, 2025

Shunock v. Apple, Inc.

Judge
Sarah Cave
Docket
1:23-cv-08598
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryEvidenceCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Shunock v. Apple, Judge Cave denied Apple’s motions without prejudice, granted its sealing motion, and extended expert-discovery deadlines.

Who this affects

Michael Shunock and Apple, Inc.; the order also set deadlines affecting the parties’ expert discovery and later motions.

What happened

In Shunock v. Apple, Inc., Apple asked the court to strike portions of Michael Shunock’s expert reports and contentions. Apple also asked to seal materials, and the parties presented arguments at an April 8, 2025 conference.

The court granted Apple’s motion to seal. It denied Apple’s motions to strike without prejudice, allowing Apple to raise those challenges after expert discovery in summary-judgment motions or under the rules governing expert testimony. The court also extended expert discovery through May 30, 2025.

Judge Sarah L. Cave extended the deadlines for opening, opposition, and reply summary-judgment and expert-testimony motions to June 20, July 11, and July 25, 2025, respectively. The Clerk was directed to close the listed motions.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Shunock v. Apple, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-08598
Judge
Sarah Cave
Date
Apr. 14, 2025

Background

Apple filed motions to strike portions of Michael Shunock’s expert reports and contentions. The court reviewed those motions, Shunock’s opposition, and the parties’ arguments at a conference held on April 8, 2025. Apple also filed a motion to seal.

Rulings

The court granted Apple’s motion to seal.

The court denied without prejudice Apple’s motions to strike. It stated that the motions challenged the merits and substance of Shunock’s expert reports. Apple may raise those challenges after expert discovery ends, including through motions for summary judgment and motions under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which addresses whether expert testimony is admissible.

The court extended the deadline to complete expert discovery through May 30, 2025. It also extended the briefing schedule for summary-judgment and expert-testimony motions: opening motions were due June 20, 2025; oppositions were due July 11, 2025; and replies were due July 25, 2025. The Clerk of Court was directed to close ECF Nos. 114, 115, and 116.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.